(His original Writings.)

Prince Rodolphus Augustus, duke of Brunswick, who has joined the love of letters to all other qualities worthy his illustrious family, was not satisfied with the magnificent library of Wolfenbuttle, he set up another private one, which he stored with a very great number of scarce books. Here we find all the writings that Luther published from the year 1517 to his death including the editions which he published and corrected himself, and which are preferable to the original manuscripts, because in revising the proofs he corrected many things that had escaped him. It is a much safer way to have recourse to these editions, than to those in which all his works have been reduced into a body, for they who collected them took the liberty to mend and change what they thought fit; and this is doubtless the reason, why the citations from Luther, upon which any controversy arises, are so hard to be verified; we can hardly have any recourse now, except to the volumes in folio published since his death. The complete editions of all his works have caused the particular editions of his tracts to be neglected, and hereby almost all the copies of these particular editions are lost, which is a misfortune. The prince I speak of, employed a professor of Helmstadt to publish an account of his library; see the book intituled, "Antiqua Literarum monumenta, autographa Lutheri aliorumque celebrium virorum ab an. 1517, usque ad annum 1546 reformationis ætatem et historiam egregie illustrantia, &c."; the first volume of which was printed at Brunswick in 1690, and the second in 1691. The overseers even of public libraries, which are the best endowed, sometimes use a blamable economy; they part with the particular tracts when they have once all the works of an author reduced into a

body, and thus it comes to pass, that there is no verifying from these great libraries, whether an author who has cited passages from the first editions, which differ from the latter, hath acted sincerely.

(Reply of Charles V.)

Charles V would not suffer Luther's tomb to be demolished, and forbad the attempting any thing of that nature upon pain of death; the Spaniards earnestly solicited him to pull it down, and even desired his bones should be dug up and burnt; but the emperor very wisely answered, "I have nothing farther to do with Luther, he has henceforth another judge whose jurisdiction it is not lawful for me to usurp: know that I make war not with the dead, but with the living who still make war against me."

(Opposition to Luther.)

Erasmus observed seven great faults in the measures taken against Luther. The first consisted in their suffering a quarrel to arise about the gatherings among the mendicant friars, and allowing the theses of indulgences to be discussed before the people in sermons; the second, in their opposing to Luther only some mendicant friars, who were no more than declaimers and organs of slander; the third, that they did not impose silence on the preachers of both parties, and chuse out prudent, learned, and peaceable persons, who might have instructed the people without any contention, and inclined them to peace and the love of the gospel; the fourth, that they would abate nothing on either side; the fifth, that cruelty was exercised against the Lutherans, at the instigation of some mendicant friars; the sixth, that the bishops of Germany, who were military men for the most part, did not do their duty; the seventh, that they did not take care to appease the wrath of God by public prayers, and by a conversion truly penitent

and sincere. The catalogue of faults of the Romish party might perhaps be enlarged; but that we leave to the speculative, and content ourselves with saying, that most of those specified by Erasmus, could not well be avoided, considering the posture of affairs the church was then in; hence it may be concluded that Luther's design was brought forth in a favorable juncture of time. The prudence of the court of Rome played its part well enough, but it could not prevent the marring the affair in several instances, by a defect in its instruments; and I am certain that numbers of Protestants are convinced that their party maintained itself by the false measures of the opposite side, as much as by the goodness of its cause. On the other hand, a great many fancy that there were several faults committed on the part of the reformation, and that these were incidents favourable to popery. Thus great quarrels are generally fed and fomented; each party makes false steps which reciprocally serve to balance and support the other. Art. LUTHER.

*

MACHIAVEL.

(Strictures on his "Prince.")

THIS author's maxims are very pernicious; the world is so persuaded of it, that Machiavelism, and the art of reigning tyrannically, are terms of the same import. "The Prince" of Machiavel was translated into French by Mr Amelot de la Houssaye. The author of the News from the Republic of Letters, speaking of the third edition of this translation, makes the following remark. "The preface is full of reflections which are very judicious; we there read amongst other things this thought of Mr de Wicquefort; Machiavel says almost every where what princes do, and not what they ought to do. It is strange there are so many people, who believe, * Bayle himself.

that Machiavel teaches princes dangerous politics; for on the contrary princes have taught Machiavel what he has written. It is the study of the world, and the observation of the transactions in it, and not a fanciful closet meditation, that have been Machiavel's masters. Let his books be burned, answered, translated, and commented, it will be all one with respect to government. By an unhappy and fatal necessity, politics set themselves above morality; they do not confess it, but yet they do like Achilles, jura negat sibi nata. A great philosopher of this age cannot bear it should be said, that it was necessary man should sin; I believe, however, that he owns, with respect to princes, that sin is now become a necessary thing, although it does not make them excusable; for besides that there are few who content themselves with what is necessary, they would not be under this wretched condition, if they were all good men." To this may be added the saying of an ancient poet, that by the bare exercise of royalty, the most innocent would learn to be guilty, without any tutor: "Ut nemo doceat fraudis et scelerum vias, regnum docebit.* Though no one were to teach the ways of fraud and wickedness, a kingdom will teach them." Every body has heard. that maxim, qui nescit dissimulare nescit regnare, and he who denies the truth of it, must be very ignorant of affairs of state. Boccalini cunningly gives us to understand, that the reign of some popes taught Machiavel the politics of his prince, and pretends, that since the reading of history is both permitted and recommended, the reading of Machiavel is unjustly condemned. The meaning of which is, that the same maxims are found in history, as in this author's prince. This does not excuse Machiavel : he advances maxims which he does not blame; but

* Seneca in Thyeste, Act ii, ver. 313.

a good historian, who relates the practice of these maxims, condemns it. This makes a great difference between this Florentine's book and history; and yet it is certain, that, by accident, the reading of history is very apt to produce the same effect, as the reading of Machiavel.

There are people, who make the apology of Machiavel, by saying, that those who attack him, shew their ignorance of matters of policy. "Whoever have hitherto undertaken to confute Machiavel, if I may speak the truth, have too plainly discovered their ignorance of politics. You will find them almost all disputing, as if there were no other republics, than such as principally, if not solely, regard the good of the people, or aim at a full and exact happiness of human life; and therefore that a politician ought solely to confine himself to them hence they condemn all doctrine, as without the limits of politics, which does not regard such republics, as they think ought alone to be inquired into by men." You will find several reflexions of this nature, in the preface which the learned Conringius has prefixed to Machiavel's "Prince." Observe, that our Florentine is accused of enriching himself with the spoils of Aristotle: his political maxims therefore have for a long time been in books. It is the same Conringius who thus charges him. "Nicolas Machiavel, that cymbal of the arts of politics, could teach his prince no secret spring of government, which Aristotle had not long ago observed, for the preservation of power, in the fifth book of his politics. Nay, perhaps this cunning doctor of iniquity transcribed his whole doctrine from Aristotle, without confessing the theft; yet with this difference, that Machiavel impiously and imprudently recommends to all princes, that, which, according to Aristotle, is applicable only to tyrants." Gentillet accuses him of being Bartolus's plagiary. I wonder they do not say, that he has stolen his maxims from