Of justification four disputations clearing and amicably defending the truth against the unnecessary oppositions…

2. Your next are all of other Subjects. The second is, whether Luke 12.24 import not a denial of Title in Christ to Judge. The answer is obvious, 1. He had not that derived ⟨p. 380⟩Title from men, which was necessary to him that should exercise the place of a Magistrate. 2. Christ speaks not of Sovereignty (that he had:) but Magistracy (which is distinct from Sovereignty, as being the Executioner of Laws, which Sovereignty makes, and being under the Law, when the Soveraign qua talis is above them.) 3. His Interrogation may perhaps be no Negation. 4. But the plain answer which I stick to is this. Christ had not then a Title or Right to the actual exercise of his power, as to divide Inheritances. The General of an Army to ransom a Soldier that should dye for Treason, doth agree with the King, that he will put himself in the place of that common soldier for a months time, and will do all his duty, and will venture his life in some desperate service. Now during this time while he is in the soldiers place, the General hath not title to the Actual Rule, &c. as before he had: not because he hath lost it, but because it will not stand with the state and duty of a soldier which he hath voluntarily put himself in. Yet at the same time, his Lieutenant General and other Officers that have their Commissions all from him do Govern. So here: will it follow that because Christ had not Title by himself to exercise the place of a Ruler and Judge being then in the state of a servant, that therefore now he hath not the Sovereignty?

2. YOur next are all of other Subjects. The second is, whether Luke 12.24 import not a denial of Title in Christ to Judge. The answer is obvious, 1. He had not that derived ⟨p. 380⟩