of a Witch but only when the Devil pleaseth I do not find he proves that it is usual with Satan to endeavour any such Discovery neither do I see how it is practicable by the Devil for either he must do it by his own relation or report which as it cannot be proved he ever did so it is vain and to no purpose if he do it for Mr. Perkins hath discredited the testimony of the Devil as invalid and of no force for conviction or else the Devil must discover it by some second means and if there had been any such second means usual Mr. Perkins would have taught us what they are and not have left us only to his two more sufficient proofs which he confesseth are not infallible King James tells us that the Devils first discovering of himself for the gaining of a Witch is either upon their walking solitarily in the Fields or else lying pausing in their bed but always without the company of any other and at the making of Circles and Conjurations none of that craft will permit any others to behold when the Devil and his Subjects are thus close and secret in their actions it cannot be imagined that he will use all means to discover his most special and trustiest Subjects and though Mr. Perkins tells us that by nature of the Precontract the Devil is cock-sure of his instruments yet within a few lines he changeth his note and saith Though he have good hope of them yet he is not certain of their continuance because some by the mercy of God have been reclaimed and freed from his Covenant Besides he confesseth the Devil suffereth some to live long undisclosed that they may exercise the greater measure of his malice in the world It remains that if the two true proofs of Mr. Perkins which are the Witches Confession or sufficient witnesses fail we have not warrant as he saith in the word to put such an one to Death I conclude this point in the words of Mr. Perkins I advise all Jurors that as they be diligent in the zeal of Gods glory so they would be careful what they do and not to condemn any party suspected upon bare presumptions without sound and sufficient proofs that they be not guilty through their own rashness of shedding innocent blood Of the Hebrew Witch IN Deut. 18. The Witch is named with divers other sorts of such as used the like unlawful Arts as the Diviner the Observer of times an Inchanter a Charmer a Consulter with a Familiar Spirit a Wisard or a Necromancer The Text addeth All that do these things are an abomination to the Lord and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them the Nations out from before thee If we desire to know what those abominations of the Nations were we are told in general in the 14. Verse of the same Chapter These Nations hearkened unto observers of times and unto Diviners There is no other crime in this Chapter laid to the charge of all or any of these practisers of such unlawful Arts but of lying Prophecies and therefore the Text addeth The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee of thy Brethren like unto me unto him shall ye hearken and not to the Diviners Wisards Charmers c. Setting aside the case of Job wherein God gave a special and Extraordinary Commission I do not find in Scripture that the Devil or Witch or any other had power ordinarily permitted them either to kill or hurt any man or to meddle with the Goods of any for though for the trial of the hearts of men God doth permit the Devil Ordinarily to tempt them yet he hath no Commission to destroy the Lives or Goods of men it is little less than blasphemy to say any such thing of the admirable providence of God whereby he preserves all his Creatures It was crime sufficient for all those practisers of unlawful Arts to delude the People with false and lying Prophecies thereby to make them forget to depend upon God and to have their Souls turn after such as have Familiar Spirits and after Wisards to go a whoring after them as the Lord saith Levit. 20.6 This spiritual whoredom is flat Idolatry in the common phrase of the Old Testament and those that be enticers to it thereby endeavour to destroy the Souls of the People and are by many degrees more worthy of Death than those that only destroy the Bodies or Goods of men If there were a Law that every one should be put to Death or punished that should advisedly endeavour to perswade men that they are skilful in those forbidden Arts or in foretelling of things to come or that they have contracted with the Devil and can thereby murther or destroy mens Goods I should never deny such a Law to be most consonant and agreeing with the Law of Moses But because I may be thought by some a favourer of these forbidden Arts through want of understanding the Scripture about the quality of them I have made choice of a man who is no Friend to Witches and whose Learning in this point will not be denied In his own words I shall set down what either out of the Hebrew Names of those prohibited Arts or out of the exposition of the Jewish Doctors can be gathered for the understanding of them 1. A Diviner in Hebrew a Foreseer or Presager a Foreteller of things to come as doth a Prophet The Hebrews take a Diviner to be one that doth things whereby he may foretel things to come and say Such a thing shall be or not be or say It is good to do such a thing The means of Divining some doing it with Sand some with Stones some by lying down on the Ground some with Iron some with a Staff He that asked of a Diviner is chastised with stripes 2. An observer of times or Soothsayer an Observer of the Clouds a Planetary or an observer of the flying of Fowls an Augur As the Diviners were carried much by inward and Spiritual Motions so these by outward Observations in the Creatures The Hebrews say they were such as did set times for the doing of things saying Such a day is good and such a day is naught 3. An Observer of Fortunes one that curiously searcheth signs of good or evil luck which are Learned by Experience the Hebrew is to find out by Experience Whereupon the word here used is one that too curiously observeth and abuseth things that do fall out as lucky or unlucky The Hebrews describe it thus as if one should say Because the morsel of Bread is fallen out of my mouth or my Staff out of my hand I will not go to such a place because a Fox passed by on my right hand I will not go out of my House this day Our new Translation renders this word an Inchanter 4. A Witch a Sorcerer such as bewitch the Senses or minds of Men
burning the thing bewitched as a Hog an Ox or other Creature it is imagined a forcible means to cause the Witch to discover her self A fourth is the burning the Thatch of the suspected parties House The fifth less sufficient proof is the binding of the party hand and foot and casting cross-ways into the water if she sinks she is counted innocent if she float on the water and sink not she is taken for a Witch convicted and punished The Germans used this Tryal by cold water and it was imagined that the Devil being most light as participating more of Air than of Water would hold them up above the Water either by putting himself under the Witch and lifting her up as it were with his back or by uniting himself and possessing her whole body All these less sufficient proofs saith Mr. Perkins are so far from being sufficient that some of them if not all are after a sort practices of Witchcraft having no power by Gods Ordinance Hereby he condemns point-blank King James's judgment as favouring of Witchcraft in allowing of the Tryal of a VVitch by swimming as a principal proof And as I take it he condemns himself also except he can find any Ordinance of God that the having of an incurable and insensible mark or sore shall be a presumption or certain sign of a Witch A sixth less sufficient proof is the Testimony of a Wizard Witch or cunning man who is gone or sent unto and informs that he can shew in a glass the Face of the Witch This accusation of a Witch by another Witch Mr. Perkins denies to be sufficient and he puts this case If the Devil appear to a Grand Jury in the likeness of some known man and offer to take his Oath that the person in question is a Witch should the Enquest receive his Oath or accusation to condemn the party He answers Surely no and yet that is as much as the Testimony of another Witch who only by the help of the Devil revealeth the Witch if this should be taken for a sufficient proof the Devil would not leave one good man alive in the world This discrediting of the Testimony of a Witch takes away the other for he hath but two of King James's main proofs for the discovery of a Witch for he saith who but Witches can be provers and so witnesses of the doings of Witches and to the same purpose Mr. Perkins himself confesseth that the Precepts of Witchcraft are not delivered but to the Devils own Subjects the wicked A seventh less sufficient proof is when a man in open Court affirms such a one fell out with me and cursed me threatning I should smart for it in my person or goods upon these threats such Evils and Losses presently befel me this is no sure ground for Conviction saith Mr. Perkins for it pleaseth God many times to lay his Hands upon mens persons and goods without the procurement of Witches and yet saith Mr. Perkins Experience shews that ignorant People will make strong proofs of such presumptions whereupon sometimes Jurors do give their Verdict against parties innocent The last less sufficient proof is if a man being sick upon suspicion will take it on his death that such a one hath bewitched him it is of no moment saith Mr. Perkins it is but the suspicion of one man for himself and is of no more force than another mans word against him All these proofs saith Mr. Perkins which men in place have ordinarily used be either false or insufficient signs At the last Mr. Perkins comes to his more sufficient proofs which are in all but two The confession of the Witch or the proof of two witnesses Against the confession of a Witch Mr. Perkins confesseth it is objected that one may confess against himself an untruth being urged by force or threatning or by desire upon some grief to be out of the World or at least being in trouble and perswaded it is the best course to save their Lives and obtain their Liberty they may upon simplicity be induced to confess that they never did even against themselves The Truth of this Allegation Mr. Perkins doth not deny but grants it in that his Answer is That he doth not say a bare Confession is sufficient but a Confession after due Examination taken upon pregnant presumptions But if a bare confession be not a sufficient proof a pregnant presumption can never make it such or if it could then it would not be a sufficient proof For the farther weakning of the Confession of a suspected Witch we may remember what Mr. Perkins hath formerly answered when it was alledged that upon a melancholy humour many confess of themselves things false and impossible That they are carried through the Air in a moment that they pass through key-holes and clefts of Doors that they be sometimes turn'd into Cats Hares and other Creatures and such like all which are meer fables and things impossible Here Mr. Perkins answers that when Witches begin to make a League they are sober and sound in understanding but after they be once in the League their reason understanding may be depraved memory weakned and all the powers of their Soul blemished they are deluded and so intoxicated that they will run into a thousand of phantastical imaginations holding themselves to be transformed into the shapes of other Creatures to be transported in the Air to do many strange things which in truth they do not Now Mr. Perkins will confess that the Examination and confession of a suspected Witch is always after such time as her Covenant is made when she is by his Confession deluded and not fit to give testimony against her self His second more sufficient proof he saith if the party will not confess as commonly it falleth out is two witnesses avouching upon their own knowledge either that the party accused hath made League with the Devil or hath done some known practices of Witchcraft or hath invocated the Devil or desired his help But if every man that hath invocated the Devil or desired his help must have formerly made a League with him then whole Nations are every man of them Witches which I think none will say As for the League and proof of Witchcraft Mr. Perkins confesseth Some may say If these be the only strong proofs for the Conviction of a Witch it will be then impossible to put any one to Death because the League with Satan is closely made and the practices of Witchcraft are also very secret and hardly can a man be brought which upon his own knowledge can aver such things To this Mr. Perkins answer is a confession that howsoever the ground and practice be secret and be to many unknown yet there is a way to come to the knowledge thereof Satan endeavoureth the discovery and useth all means to disclose Witches This means he speaks of should be in the power of the Judge or else it is no help for the discovery
it to one kind that is to Monarchy or the Government of one alone and the determination of it to the individual person and line of Adam are all three Ordinances of God Neither Eve nor her Children could either limit Adams power or joyn others with him in the Government and what was given unto Adam was given in his person to his posterity This paternal Power continued Monarchical to the Flood and after the Flood to the confusion of Babel when Kingdoms were first erected planted or scattered over the face of the World we find Gen. 10.11 it was done by Colonies of whole Families over which the prime Fathers had supreme power and were Kings who were all the Sons or Grand-children of Noah from whom they derived a fatherly and regal Power over their Families Now if this supreme Power was setled and founded by God himself in the Fatherhood how is it possible for the people to have any right or title to alter and dispose of it otherwise What Commission can they shew that gives them power either of Limitation or Mixture It was God's Ordinance that Supremacy should be unlimited in Adam and as large as all the acts of his will and as in him so in all others that have supreme Power as appears by the judgment and speech of the people to Joshuah when he was supreme Governour these are their words to him All that thou commandest us we will do whosoever he be that doth rebel against thy commandment and will not hearken unto thy words in all that thou commandest him he shall be put to death We may not say that these were evil Councellours or flattering Courtiers of Joshuah or that he himself was a Tyrant for having such arbitrary power Our Author and all those who affirm that power is conveyed to persons by publick consent are forced to confess that it is the fatherly power that first enables a people to make such conveyance so that admitting as they hold that our Ancestors did at first convey power yet the reason why we now living do submit to such power is for that our Forefathers every one for himself his family and posterity had a power of resigning up themselves and us to a supreme Power As the Scripture teacheth us That supreme Power was originally in the Fatherhood without any limitation so likewise Reason doth evince it that if God ordained that Supremacy should be that then Supremacy must of necessity be unlimited for the power that limits must be above that power which is limited if it be limited it cannot be supreme so that if our Author will grant supreme Power to be the Ordinance of God the supreme Power will prove it self to be unlimited by the same Ordinance because a supreme limited Power is a contradiction The Monarchical Power of Adam the Father of all flesh being by a general binding Ordinance setled by God in him and his posterity by right of fatherhood the form of Monarchy must be preferred above other forms except the like Ordinance for other forms can be shewed neither may men according to their relations to the form they live under to their affections and judgments in divers respects prefer or compare any other form with Monarchy The point that most perplexeth our Author and many others is that if Monarchy be allowed to be the Ordinance of God an absurdity would follow that we should uncharitably condemn all the Communities which have not that form for violation of Gods Ordinance and pronounce those other Powers unlawful If those who live under a Monarchy can justifie the form they live under to be Gods Ordinance they are not bound to forbear their own justification because others cannot do the like for the form they live under let others look to the defence of their own Government if it cannot be proved or shewed that any other form of Government had ever any lawful beginning but was brought in or erected by Rebellion must therefore the lawful and just obedience to Monarchy be denied to be the Ordinance of God To proceed with our Author in the 3 d. page he saith The Higher Power is Gods Ordinance That it resideth in One or more in such or such a way is from humane designment God by no word binds any people to this or that form till they by their own act bind themselves Because the power and consent of the People in Government is the burden of the whole Book and our Author expects it should be admitted as a magisterial postulation without any other proof than a naked supposition and since others also maintain that originally Power was or now is in the People and that the first Kings were chosen by the People they may not be offended if they be asked in what sence they understand the word People because this as many other words hath different acceptions being sometimes taken in a larger otherwhile in a stricter sence Literally and in the largest sence the word People signifies the whole multitude of mankind but figuratively and synecdochically it notes many times the major part of a multitude or sometimes the better or the richer or the wiser or some other part and oftentimes a very small part of the People if there be no other apparent opposite party hath the name of the People by presumption If they understand that the entire multitude or whole People have originally by nature Power to chuse a King they must remember that by their own principles and rules by nature all mankind in the World makes but one People who they suppose to be born alike to an equal freedom from Subjection and where such freedom is there all things must of necessity be common and therefore without a joynt consent of the whole People of the World no one thing can be made proper to any one man but it will be an injury and an usurpation upon the Common right of all others From whence it follows that natural freedom being once granted there cannot be any one man chosen a King without the universal consent of all the People of the world at one instant nemine contradicente Nay if it be true that nature hath made all men free though all mankind should concur in one vote yet it cannot seem reasonable that they should have power to alter the law of nature for if no man have power to take away his own life without the guilt of being a murtherer of himself how can any people confer such a power as they have not themselves upon any one man without being accessories to their own deaths and every particular man become guilty of being felo de se If this general signification of the word People be disavowed and men will suppose that the People of particular Regions or Countries have power and freedom to chuse unto themselves Kings then let them but observe the consequence Since nature hath not distinguished the habitable World into Kingdoms nor determined what part of a People shall
that Angels waited upon Samuel who was raised by God and not any Puppets or Devils that she conjured up otherwise the words may be Translated as Deodat in the Margent of his Italian Bible hath it She saw a Man of Majesty or Divine Authority ascend un ' huomo di Majesta è d' Authorita Divina which well answers the question of what form is he of which is in the singular not in the plural number We find it said in Esay 29.4 Thou shalt be brought down and shalt speak out of the ground and thy speech shall be low out of the dust and thy voice shall be as one that hath a Familiar Spirit out of the ground and thy speech shall whisper out of the Earth which argues the voice of Ob was out of the Earth rather than out of the Belly and so the Hebrew Exposition which I cited before affirms Some Learned have been of Opinion That a natural reason may be given why in some places certain Exhalations out of the Earth may give to some a prophetical Spirit Add hereunto That some of the Heathen Oracles were said to speak out of the Earth and among those five sorts of Necromancy mentioned by Doctor Reynolds in his 76. Lecture of his censure of the Apocryphals not any of them is said to have any Spirit in their Belly The Romanists who are all great affirmers of the Power of Witches agree That the Soul of Samuel was sent by God to the Woman of Endor to this not only Delrio but Bellarmine before him agrees That true Samuel did appear as sent by God as he sent Elias to Ochosias King of Israel who being sick sent to consult with Beelzebub the God of Echron may appear for that Samuel is so true and certain in his Prediction to Saul which no Witch no Devil could ever have told for though the Wisdom and Experience of the Devil do enable him to conjecture probably of many Events yet positively to say To morrow thou and thy Sons shall dye is more than naturally the Devil could know Mr. Perkins confesseth the Devil could not foretel the exact time of Saul's death and therefore he answers That God revealed to the Devil as his Instrument Saul's overthrow by which means and no other the Devil was enabled to foretel the death of Saul Here Mr. Perkins proves not that Satan was appointed by God to work Saul's overthrow or that it was made known to him when it should be done As the rest of the Speech of Samuel is true so these words of his Why hast thou disquieted me to bring me up may be also true which cannot be if it be spoken by the Devil or why should the Devil tell truths in all other things else and lye only in this I know no reason Doctor Reynolds presseth these words against the appearing of Samuel thus If Samuel had said them he had lied but Samuel could not lie for Samuel could not be disquieted nor raised by Saul It is true God only raised Samuel effectually but occasionally Saul might raise him But saith Doctor Reynolds Though Saul was the occasion yet Samuel could not truly say that Saul had disquieted him for blessed are they that dye in the Lord saith the Spirit because they rest from their labours and Samuel was no more to be disquieted if he were sent by God than Moses and Elias were when they appeared to shew the Glory of Christ Mat. 17. Answer It did not displease Samuel to be employed in the Office of an Angel but he obeyed God gladly yet since the occasion of his appearing displeased God it might for that cause displease also Samuel Besides we need not understand the disquieting of Samuel's mind but of his body by not suffering it to rest in peace after death according to the common and usual condition of Mankind this sense the Original will well bear Again it cannot be believed that the Devil would ever have preached so Divine and excellent a Sermon to Saul which was able to have converted and brought him to Repentance this was not the way for the Devil to bring either Saul or the Woman to renounce God Lastly the Text doth not say that the Woman raised Samuel yet it calls him Samuel and saith that Saul perceived or understood that it was Samuel Mr. Perkins and many others esteem Balaam to have been a Witch or Conjurer but I find no such thing in the Text when he was required to curse the people of Israel his answer was I will bring you word as the Lord shall speak unto me Numb 22.8 and God came unto Balaam in v. 9. and in v. 13. Balaam saith The Lord refuseth to give me leave and when Balak sent a second time his answer was If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold I cannot go beyond the word of the Lord my God to do less or more In v. 20. God cometh to Balaam and said If the men come to call thee go but yet the words which I shall say unto thee that shalt thou do And when Balaam came before Balak he said v. 38. Lo I am come unto thee have I now any power at all to say any thing The word which God putteth into my mouth that shall I speak and in the 23. Chap. v. 18. Balaam saith How shall I curse whom God hath not cursed And in v. 12. he saith Must I not take heed to speak that which the Lord hath put into my mouth These places laid together prove Balaam to have been a true Prophet of the Lord and he prophesied nothing contrary to the Lords command therefore St. Peter calls him a Prophet Nevertheless it is true that Balaam sinned notoriously though not by being a Witch or Conjurer or a false Prophet his faults were that when God had told him he should not go to Balak yet in his covetous heart he desired to go being tempted with the rewards of Divination and promise of promotion so that upon a second Message from Balak he stayed the Messengers to see if God would suffer him to go wherefore the Lord in his anger sent Balaam Also when God had told Balaam that he would bless Israel yet Balaam did strive to tempt God and by several Altars and Sacrifices to change the mind of God Again when Balaam saw God immutable in blessing Israel he taught Balak to lay a stumbling-block before the Sons of Israel to eat things sacrificed to Idols and to commit Fornication Rev. 2.14 Whereas it is said That Balaam went not up as at other times to seek for Enchantments Numb 24.2 the Original is to meet Divinations that is he did not go seek the Lord by Sacrifices as he did Numb 23.3 15. An exact difference between all those Arts prohibited in Deut. no man I think can give that in some they did agree and in others differed seems probable That they were all lying and false Prophets though in several ways I think
none can deny That they differed in their degrees of punishments is possible there are but three sorts that can be proved were to be put to death viz. the Witch the Familiar Spirit the Wisard As for the Witch there hath been some doubt made of it The Hebrew Doctors that were skill'd in the Laws of Moses observe that wheresoever one was to dye by their Law the Law always did run in an affirmative Precept as the man shall be stoned shall dye shall be put to death or the like but in this Text and no where else in Scripture the sentence is only a Prohibition negative Thou shalt not suffer a Witch to live and not Thou shalt put her to death or stone her or the like Hence some have been of opinion that not to suffer a Witch to live was meant not to relieve or maintain her by running after her and rewarding her The Hebrews seem to have two sorts of Witches some that did hurt others that did hold the eyes that is by jugling and slights deceived mens senses The first they say was to be stoned the other which according to the proper notation of the word was the true Witch was only to be beaten The Septuagint have translated a Witch an Apothecary a Druggister one that compounds poisons and so the Latin word for a Witch is Venefica a maker of poisons if any such there ever were or be that by the help of the Devil do poison such a one is to be put to death though there be no Covenant with the Devil because she is an Actor and Principal her self not by any wonder wrought by the Devil but by the natural or occult property of the Poyson For the time of Christ saith Mr. Perkins though there be no particular mention made of any such Witch yet thence it followeth not that there were none for all things that then happened are not recorded and I would fain know of the chief Patrons of them whether those persons possessed with the Devil and troubled with strange Diseases whom Christ healed were not bewitched with some such people as our Witches are If they say no let them if they can prove the contrary Here it may be thought that Mr. Perkins puts his Adversaries to a great pinch but it doth not prove so for the Question being only whether those that were possessed in our Saviour's Time were bewitched The Opposers of Mr. Perkins say they were not bewitched but if he or any other say they were the Proof will rest wholly on him or them to make good their Affirmative it cannot in reason be expected that his Adversaries should prove the Negative it is against the Rules of Disputation to require it FINIS Patriarcha OR THE Natural Power OF KINGS· By the Learned Sir ROBERT FILMER Baronet Lucan Lib. 3. Libertas Populi quem regna coercent Libertate perit Claudian Fallitur egregio quisquis sub Poincipe oredit Servitium nusquam Libertas gratior extat Quam sub Rege pio LONDON Printed for Ric. Chiswell in St. Paul's Church-Yard Matthew Gillyflower and William Henchman in Westminster Hall 1680. The COPY OF A LETTER Written by the Late Learned Dr. PETER HEYLYN to Sir Edward Fylmer Son of the Worthy Author concerning this Book and his other Political Discourses SIR HOW great a Loss I had in the death of my most dear and honoured Friend your deceased Father no man is able to conjecture but he that hath suffered in the like So affable was his Conversation his Discourse so rational his Judgment so exact in most parts of Learning and his Affections to the Church so exemplary in him that I never enjoyed a greater Felicity in the company of any Man living than I did in his In which Respects I may affirm both with Safety and Modesty that we did not only take sweet Counsel together but walked in the House of God as Friends I must needs say I was prepared for that great Blow by the Loss of my Preferment in the Church of Westminster which gave me the Opportunity of so dear and beloved a Neighbourhood so that I lost him partly before he died which made the Misery the more supportable when I was deprived of him for altogether But I was never more sensible of the Infelicity than I am at this present in reference to that Satisfaction which I am sure he could have given the Gentleman whom I am to deal with His eminent Abilities in these Political Disputes exemplified in his Judicious Observations upon Aristotles Politiques as also in some passages on Grotius Hunton Hobbs and other of our late Discoursers about Forms of Government declare abundantly how fit a Man he might have been to have dealt in this cause which I would not willingly should be betrayed by unskilful handling And had he pleased to have suffered his Excellent Discourse called Patriarcha to appear in Publick it would have given such satisfaction to all our great Masters in the Schools of Politie that all other Tractates in that kind had been found unnecessary Vide Certamen Epistolare 386. THE CONTENTS CHAP. I. That the first Kings were Fathers of Families 1 THE Tenent of the Natural Liberty of the People New Plausible and Dangerous 2 The Question stated out of Bellarmine and some contradictions of his noted 3 Bellarmine's Argument answered out of Bellarmine himself 4 The Royal Authority of the Patriarchs before the Flood 5 The Dispersion of Nations over the World after the Confusion of Babel was by entire Families over which the Fathers were Kings 6 And from them all Kings descended 7 All Kings are either Fathers of their People 8 Or Heirs of such Fathers or Vsurpers of the Right of such Fathers 9 Of the Escheating of Kingdoms 10 Of Regal and Paternal Power and of their Agreement CHAP. II. It is unnatural for the People to Govern or chose Governours 1 ARistotle examined about the Freedom of the People and justified 2 Suarez disputes against the Regality of Adam 3 Families diversly defined by Aristotle Bodin and others 4 Suarez contradicting Bellarmine 5 Of Election of Kings 6 By the major part of the People 7 By Proxie and by silent Acceptation 8 No example in Scripture for the Peoples chosing their King Mr. Hooker's Judgment therein 9 God governed always by Monarchy 10 Bellarmine and Aristotles judgment of Monarchy 11 Imperfections of the Roman Democratie 12 Rome legan her Empire under Kings and perfected it under Emperours In danger the People of Rome always fled to Monarchy 13 Whether Democraties were invented to bridle Tyrants or whether they crept in by stealth 14 Democraties vilified by their own Hystorians 15 Popular Government more Bloody than Tyranny 16 Of a mixed Government of the King and People 17 The People may not judg not correct their King 18 No Tyrants in England since the Conquest CHAP. III. Positive Laws do not infringe the Natural and Fatherly Power of Kings 1 REgal Authority not subject to Positive Laws Kings