Third.—­At the time when defection was progressing in the R.P.  Synod of Scotland, the sister Synod of Ireland strenuously resisted an attempt to remove the foresaid Bond from its place in the Terms.  The Rev. Messrs. Dick, Smith and Houston in 1837, were faithful and successful for the time in resisting that attempt.  Mr. Houston “would ever resist any alteration in respect of the Auchensaugh Bond, regarding the objection laid against it as in reality aimed at the Covenants themselves.”  Yet as a sequel to their Renovation of the Covenants at Dervock 1853, the Auchensaugh Bond was subsequently “shown to the porch”—­removed from the Terms! Fourth.—­At what was called covenant-renovation at Pittsburgh 1871, we believe no one spoke in behalf of their fathers’ noble achievement in 1712.  Indeed this could not be rationally expected in a body who could tolerate members vilifying the very Covenants which they pretended to renew. Fifth.—­Other parties farther removed from the position of their reforming progenitors; but who still claim ecclesiastical affinity with John Knox, and commonly prefix to the symbols of their faith the historical word Westminster, give very strong expression to their feelings of hostility—­not to the Auchensaugh Bond, of which probably they never heard, but to the British Covenants expressly; yea, to the very ordinance of public social covenanting 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.