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. 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