Of the second of these publications nothing need be said. Considerable bitterness towards Wesley is displayed, and a modicum of severity towards Fletcher; but, perhaps, not more than might be naturally expected; for men dislike to be vanquished. His first and much larger pamphlet, containing, besides the “Farrago,” “Six Letters” addressed to Fletcher, must have more attention. The “Letters” relate, not to the “_Third_,” but the “Second Check” of Fletcher, and were published only a few days before the appearance of the “Remarks” just noticed. Mr. Hill thus commences his first letter:— “REVEREND SIR,—After many debates with myself, and much solicitation from my friends, you now hear from me again on your _Second Check to Antinomianism_. I make no other apology for writing, than that I think there is an absolute necessity an answer should be given to it. But, whilst I make my animadversions on your letters, may the Divine Author of love and meekness preserve me from the unhappy spirit in which they are written! Oh, my dear Sir, I never could have supposed that sneer, banter, and sarcasm, yea notorious falsehood, calumny, and gross perversions, would have appeared before the world under the sanction of your venerable name.” In making such accusations, Mr. Hill ought to have known he was himself guilty of “notorious falsehood and calumny;” but he was angry, and anger is always blindfolding. Mr. Hill next proceeds to denounce Wesley’s “doctrine of _a second justification by works_;” and asserts that “it has no existence in the Word of God, nor in any Protestant Church under heaven;” but that, in this matter, “Mr. Wesley and Mr. Fletcher have the whole Council of Trent on their side.” With considerable ability, but with great bitterness and even reviling, especially so far as Wesley is concerned, Mr. Hill endeavours to refute Fletcher’s arguments in support of the doctrine just named, and then remarks:— “I intended to have made several other extracts from your first letter; but as I really cannot find many lines together free from gross misrepresentations and perversions, and hardly one single paragraph exempt from cutting sneers and low sarcasms, I confess I have not patience to transcribe them; especially when I consider that they are addressed to one” (Walter Shirley) “who, notwithstanding your former unkind behaviour, hath treated you with all the politeness of a gentleman, and the humility of a Christian.” This was an ebullition of bad temper. The charges are untrue, and the spirit is unchristian. Fletcher employed irony, but, as all candid readers of his Checks must acknowledge, it was always polite and decorous. None but irritated men, like Mr. Hill, can find “low sarcasms;” and as for “gross misrepresentations and perversions,” they have no existence.