best education, and best education without the best law, or the
best laws any otherwise than by the excellency of their polity.

But if some of these commonwealths, as being less perfect in
their polity than others, have been more seditious, it is not
more an argument of the infirmity of this or that commonwealth in
particular, than of the excellency of that kind of polity in
general, which if they, that have not altogether reached, have
nevertheless had greater prosperity, what would befall them that
should reach?

In answer to which question let me invite Leviathan, who of
all other governments gives the advantage to monarchy for
perfection, to a better disquisition of it by these three
assertions.

The first, that the perfection of government lies upon such a
libration in the frame of it, that no man or men in or under it
can have the interest, or, having the interest, can have the
power to disturb it with sedition.

The second, that monarchy, reaching the perfection of the
kind, reaches not to the perfection of government, but must have
some dangerous flaw in it.

The third, that popular government, reaching the perfection
of the kind, reaches the perfection of government, and has no
flaw in it.

The first assertion requires no proof.