_Direct._ XXXIII. No human power is at all to be obeyed against God: for they have no power, but what they receive from God; and all that is from him, is for him. He giveth no power against himself; he is the first efficient, the chief dirigent, and ultimate final cause of all.[80] It is no act of authority, but resistance of his authority, which contradicteth his law, and is against him. All human laws are subservient to his laws, and not co-ordinate, much less superior. Therefore they are _ipso facto_ null, or have no obligation, which are against him: yet is not the office itself null, when it is in some things thus abused; nor the magistrate's power null, as to other things. No man must commit the least sin against God, to please the greatest prince on earth, or to avoid the greatest corporal suffering.[81] "Fear not them that can kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do; but fear him, who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell: yea, I say unto you, fear him," Luke xii. 4. "Whether we ought to obey God rather than men, judge ye," Acts v. 29. "Not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him that is invisible.--Others were tortured, not accepting deliverance," &c. Heb. xi. 27, 35. "Be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image," &c. Dan. iii. 18. _Object._ If we are not obliged to obey, we are not obliged to suffer; for the law obligeth primarily to obedience, and only secondarily _ad pœnam_, for want of obedience. Therefore where there is no primary obligation to obedience, there is no secondary obligation to punishment. _Answ._ The word obligation, being metaphorical, must in controversy be explained by its proper terms. The law doth first _constituere debitum obedientiæ, et propter inobedientiam debitum pœnæ_. Here then you must distinguish, 1. Between obligation _in foro conscientiæ_, and _in foro humano_. 2. Between an obligation _ad pœnam_ by that law of man, and an obligation _ad patiendum_ by another divine law. And so the answer is this: first, If the higher powers, e. g. forbid the apostles to preach upon pain of death or scourging, the dueness both of the obedience and the penalty, is really null, in point of conscience; however _in foro humano_ they are both due; that is, so falsely reputed in that court: therefore the apostles are bound to preach notwithstanding the prohibition, and so far as God alloweth they may resist the penalty, that is, by flying: for properly there is neither _debitum obedientiæ nec pœnæ_. Secondly, But then God himself obligeth them not to "resist the higher powers," Rom. xiii. 1-3, and "in their patience to possess their souls." So that from this command of God, there is a true obligation _ad patiendum_, to patient suffering and non-resistance, though from the law of man against their preaching, there was no true obligation _aut ad obedientiam, aut ad pœnam_. This is the true resolution of this sophism.