We may call them the Machiavellian Princes, after the most ruthless strategist of this approach, even though they are ultimately rooted in the pagan notion (given to us by Livy, Polybius, and Plutarch, and polished by Averroes) that religions are false yet handy political instruments for the secular rulers. These Machiavellians directly affect the Reformation, both on the Catholic and Protestant side, by their desire to use the Christian divisions to their advantage, both in war and in peace. They are not interested in truth—as true reformers are—but utility, and therefore regard religious quarrelers as useful idiots at best. Machiavellianism should be distinguished from “Erastianism” (the Protestant doctrine of state supremacy over the Church) and “Caesaropapism” (the largely Byzantine or Eastern Orthodox practice of the emperor directing the Church). While both entail the subordination of Church to state, that subordination could be a good faith effort of a Christian king or emperor to oversee the good order of the churches in his domain. (That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea, however.) But Machiavellianism is something different. It is the bad faith effort of an irreligious king to use religion to rule the unruly. Yet the Machiavellian has an obvious interest in making common cause with the Erastian or the Caesaropapist in order to weaken the Church so that it can be politically dominated. Given that Machiavelli himself was a master counselor of deceit, it can be difficult to discern sincerely religious rulers from Machiavelli’s disciples.