In the first eight of his letters, Fletcher quotes copiously from the Liturgy, Articles, and Homilies of the Church of England, and from the writings of Puritan divines. He also minutely examines Mr. Richard Hill’s objections to his doctrines and to his Scriptural expositions. Up to this point there is a comparative absence of his cutting irony; but there is a great amount of powerful and triumphant writing. In his ninth letter, addressed to Rowland Hill, he naturally enough lays aside the restraint he had put upon himself. Richard Hill was now a man of matured life, forty years of age; his brother Rowland was a young man of only twenty-seven. The former had not been sparing in the use of acrimonious epithets; the latter had been lavish. No wonder that Fletcher spared not his youthful opponent. He wrote:— “What reason have you to assert, as you do, that I ‘_have grossly misrepresented the Scriptures_,’ and ‘made _universal havoc of every truth of the Gospel_’? The first of these charges is heavy, the second dreadful. Let us see by what arguments they are supported. After throwing away a good part of your book in passing a long, Calvinian, juvenile sentence upon my spirit as a writer, you come at last to the point, and attempt to explain some of the Scriptures which you suppose I have ‘misrepresented.’” Fletcher proceeds to examine what he calls “the arguments” of Rowland Hill; and then concludes, as follows:— “Having answered your objections to what you justly call ‘the principal cause of the controversy among us,’ I may make one or two observations upon the _friendliness_ of your ‘_Friendly Remarks_.’ “Candid reader, if thou hast read my Checks without prejudice, and attentively compared them with the Word of God, wouldest thou ever think that the following lines contain an extract from the _friendly_ sentence, which my young opponent passes upon them?—‘Hard names, banter, sarcasm, sneer, abuse, bravado, low arts of slander, slanderous accusation, opprobrious name, ill-natured satire, odious, deformed, detestable colours, unfair and ungenerous treatment, terms void of truth, unmerciful condemnations, false humility, irritating spirit, provoking, uncharitable style, continual sneers, most odious appellations, abusive words, notorious scandalizing, lines too dreadful to be transcribed, unworthy of an answer, beneath contempt, most indecent ridicule, a wretched conclusion, as bitter as gall, _and_ slanders which ought even to make a Turk blush.’