Is not the heart of a prince in the hand of God?

Text by professor Timo Airaksinen

Berkeley may permit criticism, but I doubt it. Certainly one not must not "preach up" resistance; it is better "sit still" (see below). [i] However, he thinks "subordinate magistrates" may come to help if they think the case is evil enough, or it is against the divine law. Perhaps one can inform them?

[M]ost certainly the subordinate magistrates may not, nay, they ought not, in obedience to those [evil] decrees, to act any thing contrary to the express laws of God. And, perhaps, all things considered, it will be thought that representing this limitation of their active obedience by the laws of God or nature, as a duty to the ministers of the supreme power, may prove in those extravagant supposed cases no less effectual for the peace and safety of a nation than preaching up the power of resistance to the people. (PO 49).

Some civil laws may indeed conflict with the divine natural law, and then the distressed citizens may expect the magistrates to spring to action. Or, if this does not happen, "Is not the heart of a prince in the hand of God? May He not therefore give him a right sense of his duty, or may He not call him out of the world by sickness, accident, or the hand of some desperate ruffian, and send a better in his stead?" After this, we only can "sit still, and pray for better times." (PO 47). Perhaps Berkeley is ironic here: God does not interfere in earthly matters case by case. He works exclusively through His natural laws. Of course, miracles are possible but obviously he does not think of miracles here.

[i] Warnock (1986, p. 559) argues, without evidence, that one can actively protest the prince, non-violently.