itself. But we shall let
them speak for themselves. One Doctor of divinity is reported as
saying--"I am opposed to the whole matter of covenanting. Covenants do
an immense sight more harm than good. Those Scotch Covenanters brought
persecution upon themselves by their covenants."[1]

Another Dr. said, "I have always been opposed to covenanting. One
generation of God's people have no right to enter into bonds that entail
obligations upon future generations."[2] A third Dr. said, "I hold it is
a sin for men to go into the august presence of God and enter into
covenant with him. It is base presumption."[3] A fourth Dr. said, "I
hold that the church as an organization is not a responsible moral
agent. Neither is the nation!" These sentiments may well excite
astonishment and alarm, when proclaimed by accredited teachers of
morality and religion. _Sixth._--Seceders have all along their history
claimed to be the sole heirs of the Scottish covenanted inheritance.
They are not ignorant of the Auchensaugh Renovation. How they view that
transaction may be best ascertained from their own language. The
_Original Secession Magazine_ for November 1880, p. 861, speaks thus,
"The distinction drawn between 'Covenanters' and 'Seceders,' we have
shown to be groundless. Are Reformed Presbyterians covenanters at all?
There is not an _actual_ Covenanter among them. They renewed the
Covenants after a fashion in 1712. In our view the Covenants were not
renewed, they were only mangled," &c. These sentiments are sufficiently
strong and explicit to be intelligible. The writer's feelings evidently
interfered with judicial discrimination, while openly expressing that
hostility to the Auchensaugh Bond which is concealed by others. The Rev.
John McMillan, whom the Lord honored to take the lead at Auchensaugh, is
especially branded by this writer who asserts,--"he did not secede and
retire, he was expelled; nor was the position of his early associates in
the ministry of the purest water." Moreover, this writer asserts "that
they (Seceders) have actually renewed the Covenants, from time to time,
during the whole period of their existence." How could this be, since
Seceders have all along rejected "the civil part of the Covenants?" But
these documents bear on their face a direct aim at personal, domestic,
ecclesiastical, and civil reformation. No party can intelligently and
honestly renew the National Covenant and Solemn League, while eulogizing
the "Gl