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