In fulfilling the office of Reviewers, we have much more pleasure in commending, than in censuring the works which come under our notice; and we trust that we shall always be ready to give the just meed of praise even to such writings as contain opinions opposed to our own, provided that those opinions are stated with Christian courtesy and good temper, and advocated with candour and fair argument. We are, therefore, sincerely sorry to be compelled to animadvert upon Mr. Turner's pamphlet in language very alien to our feelings. We would, indeed, gladly have passed it over altogether without notice; and, if we could have depended upon its receiving calm consideration from all its readers, we would have done so, but so many are liable to be led away by strong language and bold assertions, without stopping to enquire into the truth of the statements, or into the coherence of the reasoning in the books they read, that we feel it a duty to the public to exhibit this Tract to them in its proper light. In doing so, we shall endeavour to avoid overstepping the bounds of Christian charity, and although our strictures may appear severe, we make them out of a regard for the religious well-being of the community at large, and in no spirit of unkindness towards the individual.

1. We would remark, as the first characteristic which we observed in reading this pamphlet, the strange confusion of ideas which the writer seems to have respecting the nature of what he undertakes to explain, viz. Regeneration. In page 3, he speaks of "regeneration or a change of heart," whence we may infer, that he considers these expressions as synonymous. But in page 5 he says, "Regeneration is known only by the effects it produces, namely, conviction by the Holy Spirit's indwelling, previously to conversion." Does he mean to say that conviction, which he describes as previous to conversion, is the effect of a change of heart? If so, then what is conversion? We had always considered it to be a change of heart; but, according to this writer, regeneration or change of heart, is the cause of conviction, and conviction precedes conversion. Again, page 6, he tells us that , "Regeneration produces a change of heart;" and a few lines afterwards, that, "Regeneration is always preparatory to, and inseparably connected with, conversion. Regeneration is an imparting of a new, living, and spiritual capacity for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, whereby the regenerate soul is led to see the error of his own ways, his lost and ruined condition by nature and by practice; in the inflexible justice of God's holy law; and eventually, the righteousness of God in condemning him as a transgressor. Such, and such only, being regenerate, are brought to cry, from dire necessity, 'God be merciful to us, miserable sinners.'" And again, page 9, he asks, "Did not the expression of this poor man" (the jailer at Phillipi) "indicate, that the work of regeneration had been accomplished, by the convictions manifested, and his anxiety to be informed what he should do to be saved?" We leave our readers to pass their own comment upon this description of Regeneration.

2. The second characteristic which we noticed was the difficulty of ascertaining to what the author was referring. An instance of this occurs in page 4. After noticing the Baptismal Service of the Church of England, he proceeds, "This idol of natural adoration, which the mystery of iniquity and all the world worship, was, without a doubt, invented in Africa, in the second century; but it moved with such rapid strides, that, before the end of the third century, it had become universal. The first persons who noticed the subject were Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, and Augustine; all Africans by birth and location. Cyprian became its advocate and apologist; the multitude who professed Christianity, not only embraced it, but turned it into a part Saviour, and affirmed the necessity of its administration to infants, for the purpose of washing away their original sin." The grammatical construction requires us to refer the expression to the Baptismal Service of the Church of England; but this clearly cannot be his meaning. We should conjecture that he meant to speak of Infant Baptism; but this cannot be; for he speaks of "its administration to infants" as something subsequent. Hence he must mean simply the ordinance of Baptism with water; but he can hardly intend to allege that this was invented in the second century. We are not exaggerating a difficulty for the sake of finding an objection; but we are really unable to satisfy ourselves, what the author had in his mind when he wrote the above sentences.

3. The third characteristic of this writer is a pedantic pretension to learning, and what frequently accompanies such pretension, a boldness of assertion, from which a really learned man, whatever his particular opinions might be, should shrink. Thus he gives the derivation of the terms, "Regeneration," and "clinics," and "baptise;" and he refers to Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Augustine, Eusebius, &c. A little learning is, however, a dangerous thing; and this show of it, will only cause a smile in those, who are able to estimate, at their due value, his statements and criticisms.

4. Closely connected with the last-mentioned characteristic is the entire want of Christian modesty and propriety of language, which his tract displays. He designates the person whose opinions he is combating as a "poor blind man;" and his tone throughout is that of the contemptuous sneerer, rather than the calm and temperate reasoner.

5. But we have yet more serious charges against him: for another of his characteristics is, his practice of drawing conclusions wholly unwarrented by the texts, which he refers to. Of this we have various instances: - e.g. having quoted in his first page, our Blessed Lord's words to Nicodemus, John iii. 5, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of Water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," &c., he remarks, "Now, this does not mean water literally, but spiritually; as in Ephesians, v.26, 'that he might sanctify and cleanse it (the Church) with the washing of water by the Word.' Hence water is merely a symbolical expression, setting forth the efficacy of the Word of God, in its cleansing or renewing power by the Holy Ghost, on the soul." He may be right in his interpretation of the first text, although nearly all the most eminent Divines think otherwise; but how does the second prove him to be so?

Again, in page 5, he writes, "Regeneration is an act of the Spirit who quickens; the time when or place where, no one knows; as our Lord said to Nicodemus, 'the wind bloweth where it listeth; thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, or whither it goeth; so is every one who is born of the Spirit.'" Our Lord, in these words, teaches us, that we cannot understand the nature of the Spirit's operations; but He says nothing about our not knowing the time of them. If we could draw any inference at all upon this point, it would be the contrary way; for we do know when the wind blows.

Again: upon the reply of the Eunuch to Philip, Acts viii. 37, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God," he observes, in page 7, "the import of that Gospel ordinance of Baptism appeared opened up or revealed to him, as setting forth the overwhelming sufferings of God's dear Son. His passing through death, descending into the grave, and gloriously rising again for the eternal justification of all those whom the Father gave to His Son to redeem." How can any one professing to reason from the Scriptures, indulge a fanciful reverie as this?

And once more: having mentioned the pouring out of the gift of the Holy Ghost upon Cornelius and his friends, he writes, in page 8, "Observe! this was not the regenerating act of the Holy Ghost, but the gift of the Holy Ghost, which was evidently something visible; for the Word of God tells us clearly, that they were regenerated or born of the Spirit ere Peter was commisioned to go to them. The second verse of the same chapter fully confirms the above assertion; 'the Holy Ghost has said, that he, Cornelius, was one that feared God with all his house, who gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always.'" How can he affirm that "this was not the regenerating act of the Spirit?" Or how do his notions of the state of Cornelius accord with the language of the Angel to him, as related, Acts xi. 13, 14, "Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved."

6. And not only does Mr. Turner draw unwarrantable conclusions from the texts which he quotes, but while he takes for the motto of his pamphlet, "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them," (Isaiah viii. 20,) he does not scruple to give an explanation of the import of Baptism, for which he alleges, and we may add, could allege, no Scriptual authority whatever. We have already quoted the passage from page 7, where he describes Baptism "as setting forth the overwhelming sufferings of God's dear Son," &c. Is this anything more than human invention?

7. But we have not yet done. We have still one charge, and the heaviest of all, against him, viz., the garbling, or mutilation, of God's most holy Word, to suit his purpose. We would fain believe that he has not been conciously guilty of so great a sin; but we are constrained to say, that the omissions, which we shall presently point out, in his quotations, bring him under very strong suspicion. Our readers will remember, that his object is to impugn the doctrine of Baptism with water being the Sacrament of Regeneration. With this view, in his first page he writes, "that it was never intended to impart any efficacy to water; the apostle Peter says respecting water Baptism, in his first Epistle, chapter iii. verse 21, 'not putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.'" Here he quotes the words of the Apostle Peter; but those words are only the latter part of a sentence, the beginning of which Mr. Turner omits to notice. Now what is that former part which he omits? It is this, "The like figure whereunto even Baptism doth also now save us." Here the Apostle affirms of Baptism, and he evidently meant Baptism with water, that it "saves us," although he shows us that we are not to trust in the mere outward form, by adding, "not the washing, &c." What a different meaning does the whole sentence bear from that, which Mr. Turner's garbled quotation would lead an unsuspecting reader of his pamphlet to put upon it!

Another instance occurs, page 8. The writer professes to describe the formation of the first Gospel church at Jerusalem, under the ministry of the Apostle Peter, thus: - "First, Peter preached the Word - they who heard with power, cried out - 'Men and brethren, what shall we do?' Second, Peter said unto them, 'Repent, and be baptised, every one of you;' 'then they that gladly received his Word were baptised; and the same day, there were added to them about 3,000 souls; and they continued steadfastly in the Apostle's doctrine and fellowship, and breaking of bread and in prayers.' Acts ii. 13 to the end. How clearly the constitution of the first church is recorded: First, they were made disciples. Secondly, they were baptised. And thirdly, they were brought into church communion and fellowship." Here, as our readers will observe, he quotes Acts ii. 37, 38, 41, and 42; but he leaves out the latter part of verse 38. Why does he leave it out? We are sorry to do so, but we cannot help answering; because in the latter part of the verse the Apostle states the object and spiritual effect of Baptism, and these it was Mr. Turner's wish to keep out of sight. Peter's reply to the question of the multitude, "What shall we do?" was, "Repent and be baptised, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

We here close our remarks upon this publication. In commenting upon it, we have performed a painful task, which we should not have undertaken if we had not felt that the faults which characterise it, ought not to be passed over without animadversion. Whosoever would write upon any controverted doctrine of our religion, ought to take a calm and comprehensive view of what the Word of God teaches us concerning it. He ought to examine all the passages which bear upon it, and compare them with one another, and he ought to be careful, that the texts which he quotes, warrant the inferences which he draws from them; and that he does not misapply them, or at all strain their meaning. He ought also to express his opinions with Christian courtesy and regard to those who differ from him. And, above all, he ought to be strictly honest in his use of the Scriptures, and not pervert their true sense by garbled quotations from them. A pamphlet like that of Mr. Turner cannot assist any who are really desirous to investigate the subject of which it professes to treat; but is calculated only to excite the feelings, and foster the prejudices, of those who may be already predisposed towards the opinions of the writer.