_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 "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