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 “Glorious Revolution” of 1688, while in allegiance to the British throne—­that “bloody horn of the beast;” or whose political principles will identify them with any other horn which may have power to scatter “Judah.”  Zech. i:  21.

We have thus attempted by an induction of particulars, as concisely as we could, to point out existing opposition to our Covenanted Reformation, by various parties who assail the British Covenants directly, or by a first assault upon the Auchensaugh Bond, would reach a fatal stroke at the Covenants themselves.  We believe with our predecessors that those who reject the Auchensaugh Renovation, by logical necessity will relinquish the Covenants themselves.

The reader may be assured that neither we nor the Reformed Presbytery, whose committee we are, claim Papal infallibility or Christian perfection; nor do we ask implicit faith in any uninspired documents.  But we sincerely believe ourselves that the Auchensaugh Renovation and the Bond, to which the foregoing statements are prefixed, will be found on examination to be sound, faithful, and “in nothing contrary to the word of God.”

DAVID STEELE,
ROBERT ALEXANDER,
JOHN CLYDE.
Committee

FOOTNOTES: 

[Footnote 1:  This gentleman does not seem to know that infidels use similar argument against Christianity.  Or, did he never read—­“I came not to send peace on the earth, but a sword.”  His logic also is as faulty as his theology—­non causa pro causa.]

[Footnote 2:  On what principle does this minister dispense the ordinance of baptism to subjects in their minority?  Is baptism a mere ceremony, involving no obligation upon the children of believers?  Gen. xvii:  14.]

[Footnote 3:  No presumption, when graciously invited to do so.  Is. lvi:  4, 6, 11.  This teaching tends to the subversion of social order—­the moral order of the universe. 2 Pet. ii:  10.]

* * * * *

THE AUCHENSAUGH RENOVATION.