XI. The second apology, is contradicted by the literal and natural sense of the author’s writings; for if he intended to convey a meaning which was different from these, it is not easy to ascertain what that meaning was. I will admit as good and conclusive, all the arguments that are used to prove Machiavel was an enemy to tyranny. There is no man whatever who does not abhor tyranny, while he contemplates it as a restraint on his own person, or while he is apprehensive part of the weight of it may be loaded on his own shoulders. But many of those who abhor it in general, are friends to it in particular, and especially, if they entertain hopes that the favour of the tyrant will better their fortunes. It is very natural to suppose, this was the state and situation of Machiavel’s mind when he wrote his book. The Medicis at that time ruled the city of Florence; and he imagined that he should sooth and flatter them, by approving and recommending a government, that dispensed with all law, as the means the best calculated to pave the way for the introduction and establishment of despotic power. Perhaps also, he might entertain hopes, that some prince who read his book, might be induced to make him his prime minister, from an expectation, that by having the author of these maxims at his elbow, he might be able to raise his power to the highest pitch of uncontroul and grandeur. XIII. The excuse, with which it is attempted to defend Machiavel by the third supposition, is manifestly sophistical. It cannot be denied, that we read in a variety of authors, of numbers of princes who have put in practice the doctrine of Machiavel, but there is this great difference between those authors and Machiavel, that they condemn the doctrine, which he adopts and enforces. They, at the same time that they inform you of the fact, inspire you with horror of the maxim; he, when he teaches the maxim, exhorts to the execution of it. How great must his zeal have been to recommend and persuade tyranny, when he had the presumption to propose Moses and David, as examples of tyrannic government? but to this execrable degree of impiety, did Machiavel carry his daring blasphemy.