But here, they would have people attend to their chimerical distinction between the king’s civil and ecclesiastical authority.  They have made a successless attempt (in order to establish their antigovernment scheme) for the overthrow of a distinction, which Heaven has irreversibly fixed, between the preceptive and providential will of God; and, for the same purpose, they will impose this distinction on the generation—­a mere shift and artifice, which has no foundation nor subsistence any where else, but in their imagination, and serves for no purpose but to cheat their own and others’ consciences, and betray the cause of God.  It is plain, that as a power, both civil and ecclesiastical, belongs to the essence and constitution of an English diocesan bishop, so the same is declared to belong now to the essence and constitution of an English king, who is the head and chief prelate among them all; and it is their manner to call themselves his bishops (not Christ’s), as having their power, both ecclesiastical and civil, immediately from him, as the fountain of all power within his dominions So that there is no room for this distinction of Seceders here, unless they are such expert logicians, as to distinguish a thing from that which is essential to it, and so from itself; but this is a destruction, not a distinction. Seceders indeed presume and depend very much upon their abilities of this kind; for they can distinguish between the magistrate’s office and its essential qualifications, which God has inseparably joined together in his word.  They can distinctly pray for the head, author, authorizer and prime supporter, of abjured Prelacy and Prelates, that God would bless him in his government, and yet not pray for the Prelates themselves.  They can pray very fervently and distinctly for the British and Irish parliaments, and yet not at all pray for the bishops, necessary and essential members there.  And what is all this but to pray for a nonentity, a mere creature of their own mind?  They have neither king nor parliament in their abstracted and imaginary sense, but do clearly distinguish themselves out of both.  We might refer them to that famous and faithful embassador, and renowned martyr for the cause and testimony of Jesus, Mr. Donald Cargill, in his last speech and testimony, and let him determine the controversy (in this particular) between us.  They will not be so bold as to say, that this honorable witness died with a lie in his right hand.  His words are these:  “As to the cause of my suffering, the main is, not acknowledging the present authority as it is now established.  This is the magistracy I have rejected, that was invested with Christ’s power; and seeing that power taken from Christ, which is his glory, and made the essential of the crown, I thought it was as if I had seen one wearing my husband’s clothes, after he had killed him.  And seeing it is made the essential of the crown, there is no distinction we can make, that can