the angelic doctor, the great St Thomas Aquinas. See in Naudé's State Politics, a long passage of Thomas Aquinas's commentary upon the fifth book of Aristotle's Politics. Mr Amelot proves, that Machiavel was but the disciple or interpreter of Tacitus, and he makes use of the same observation as Con ringius. "Of all those," says he, "that censure Machiavel, you will find that some confess they never read him; and the others who have read him, have never understood him; as appears by their taking several passages in a literal sense, which the politicians know how to interpret otherwise. So that, to tell the truth, he is censured only because he is ill understood; and he is ill understood by many, who are capable of understanding him better, only because they read him with prejudice: whereas, if they read him as judges, that is, holding the balance even between him and his adversaries, they would see, that his maxims are for the most part absolutely necessary to princes, who, as the great Cosmo de Medicis said, cannot always govern their states with their beads in their hand. The prince in question observed, that it is no wonder, that Machiavel is censured by so many people; since there are so few that understand reasons of state, and who, consequently, are qualified to be competent judges of his precepts and maxims. And I will say by the way, that there are abundance of ministers and princes, that study them, and even practise them in every point, who had condemned and detested them, before they came to the ministry, or the throne. So true it is that a man must be a prince, or at least a minister, to know, I say not the usefulness, but the absolute necessity of these maxims." This is applying to Machiavel, what another had said of Tacitus: " They who accuse him of holding impious maxims, and opposite to morality, must pardon me, if I tell them, that never politician handled state-maxims more reasonably than he; and that the most scrupulous who have blamed them, whilst they were private persons, have studied and practised them, when they were called to the management of public affairs." Mr Amelot has cited these words from Mr de Chanvalon. It is said, that Machiavel's "Prince" was translated into the Turkish tongue, and read by Sultan Amurath IV, in that language.-Art. MACHIAVEL. MAHOMETANISM, THE religion of Mahomet soon had, and still has, a vast extent. We must not believe those who say, that it possesses one half of the world or more, it is sufficient to say, "That, if we divide the known countries of the earth into thirty equal parts, five of them are Christian, six Mahometan, and nineteen Pagan." Thus the Mahometan religion is of much larger extent than the Christian; for it exceeds it by one thirtieth part of the known world, which is a very considerable part. Mahometan Miracles. Mahomet says himself, that he wrought no miracles, and yet his followers attribute many to him. Grotius makes use of this confession, to refute Mahometanism, after having observed, that Mahomet does not deny the miracles of Jesus Christ. "Jesus visum cæcis, claudis gressum, ægrotis sanitatem dedit, imo fatente Mahumete, etiam vitam mortuis. Mahumetes* se missum ait non cum miraculis, sed cum armis. Secuti tamen sunt, qui ei et miracula attribuerent, at qualia? Nempe quæ aut arte humana facilè possunt effecta reddi, ut de columba ad . Azoara, 3, 14, 17, 30, 71. aurem advolante: aut quorum nulli sunt testes, ut de camelo noctu ei locuto: aut quæ sua absurditate refelluntur,* ut de magna Lunæ parte in manicam ipsius delapsa, et ab ipso remissa ad reddendam sideri rotunditatemt. Jesus, by the confession of Mahomet himself, gave sight to the blind, feet to the lame, health to the sick, and even life to the dead. Mahomet says, he was sent, not with miracles, but with arms. Yet some, in after times, ascribed miracles, to him, but of what sort? Either such as could easily be effected by human art, as that of a pigeon flying to his ear; or such, as there are no witnesses of, as that of a camel which spoke to him by night; or such, as are refuted by their own absurdity, as that of a great part of the moon dropping into his sleeve, and sent back again by him, in order to restore to that planet its rotundity." We must not leave this subject, before we set down the remark of a learned German, who says, that some Christians, prompted by a false zeal against Mahomet, accuse him of boasting of certain miracles, which the Arabian writers never attributed to him. "There are some Arabian authors, who attribute miracles to Mahomet; but others deny them. For instance, the former say, that the moon drawing near to Mahomet, he clave it asunder. Mr Pfeiffer observes, after Beidavi, that Mahomet never said this, but only that, before the last day, that prodigy will be seen in heaven. They make him say, that, at the taking of the city of Chaibar, a Jewish woman having presented him with a poisoned lamb, the lamb, though quite roasted, warned him not to eat it. But Abulfeda, relating the story, only says, that Mahomet, having tasted it, and perceiving that it was poi* Azoara 64. Vide latius hanc fabulem ex capite Ceramur, apud Cantacuzenum Oratione in Mahumetem, num. 23. + Grotius de veritate Religionis Christianæ, lib. vi. p. m. 202. He cites Azoara. 5, 13. soned, spat it out upon the ground, and said, this lamb tells me, that it is poisoned; meaning, I find that it is poisoned. In effect, he confesses often in the Koran, that he could not work miracles. Wherefore I consider as a fable, what some tell us of a pigeon, that came to eat from his ear, and of a bull, that would eat nothing but what he gave him with his own hand. Mr Pfeiffer acknowledges, that these stories are the effects of the distempered zeal of some Christians against this impostor.' Might we not represent to Mr Pfeiffer, that the Christians have used the Mahometans in this respect as the reformed have used the Catholics. For there are in legendary writers, many miracles, which are not mentioned by grave authors of the Romish communion, and which they even laugh at. Does it follow therefore, that the Protestant writers are calumniators, or transported with too much zeal, because they object to Catholics such kind of miracles? And why may we not say, that the Christians, who have ridiculed the Mahometans for such miracles, as are not now to be found in Arabian authors, had read them in some obscure writers, who took the liberty to tell them, in honour of that false prophet, as the legendary writers have done in honour of the saints. In some respects, therefore, the zeal of our disputants is unjust; for if they make use of the extravagances of a Mahometan legendary, to make Mahomet himself odious, or to ridicule him, they violate the equity, which is due to all the world,. to wicked, as well as good men. We must not impute to any body what they never did, and consequently we must not argue against Mahomet from these idle fancies, which some of his followers have fabled of him, if he himself never published them. We have sufficient matter against him, though we charge him only with his own faults, and do not make him answerable for the follies, which the indiscreet and ro mantic zeal of some of his disciples has prompted them to write. Mahomet no Enthusiast. Some imagine, that Mahomet might believe what he said. They reason after this manner: all Christians are agreed, that the devil is the true author of Mahometism, and that he only made use of Mahomet as an instrument to establish in the world a false religion. We must therefore say, that Mahomet was delivered up to the devil, by the providence of God; and that the power God gave the devil over this wretch, was much less limited, than that he had over Job; for God did not permit the devil to pervert the soul of Job, as he permitted him to make use of the soul of Mahomet to deceive mankind. The devil having so great a power over him, by the confession of all Christians, as to instigate him to spread his new opinions; could he not persuade him, that God had established him a prophet? Could he not inspire him with that vast design, of planting a new religion? Could he not make him willing to undergo a thousand troubles, in order to deceive the world: and could he not seduce him? What reason can any one have to admit the one, and deny the other? is it more difficult to move the will to great designs, in spite of all the light of reason, that opposes them, than to deceive the understanding, by a false persuasion, or to incline the will to embrace a false light, so as to acquiesce in it as a true revelation? I must confess, that one of these things appears not to me more difficult than the other; for if the devil could seduce Mahomet, is it not very probable, that he did in effect seduce him? This man would be the fitter to execute the devil's designs, if he were so persuaded, than if he were not. This cannot be denied me; for all things being otherwise equal, it is plain, that a man, who believes he does well, will |