The anti-evangelical _Monthly Review_ of November, 1773, in noticing Fletcher’s publication, remarked:— “Mr. Fletcher, who is a man of learning and considerable abilities, has given us a curious account of this phenomenon, which has been so frequently mentioned in our newspapers. He has minutely, but in very flowery language, described the awful appearances left by this extraordinary convulsion of the earth; and he fairly states the different opinions which were formed in regard to the cause of so wonderful an event. Mr. Fletcher tells us that he piously chose to take advantage of the seriousness stamped, by this alarming occurrence, on the minds of the country people, in order to press upon them a proper sense of the _first_ or _moral_ cause of so tremendous a dispensation; and this he has done in a manner as rational as could be well expected from the peculiarity of the occasion and the known enthusiastic spirit of the preacher.” CHAPTER XIV. _“THE FINISHING STROKE,” “THE CHRISTIAN WORLD UNMASKED,” “MR. RICHARD HILL’S THREE LETTERS.”_ 1773. AFTER this long and awkward interruption, there must now be a return to the wearisome Calvinian controversy. Early in the year 1773, Mr. Richard Hill published an 8vo. pamphlet of 57 pages, with the title, “The Finishing Stroke: containing some Strictures on the Rev. Mr. Fletcher’s Pamphlet, entitled Logica Genevensis, or a Fourth Check to Antinomianism.” “The Finishing Stroke!” remarked the _Monthly Review_ for March, 1773. “No—we are afraid not! We shall certainly have _more last words_ from Shropshire. Here is a fresh attack on the Vicar of Madeley. Mr. Hill does not seem at all inclined to let Mr. Fletcher remain master of the field, for want of an opponent, ‘notwithstanding the resolution he had formed of being silent.’—_Vide advert._ prefixed to the ‘Finishing Stroke.’” Mr. Hill’s pamphlet is dated January 2, 1773, and addressed to Fletcher. He begins by saying:— “Last Saturday, and not before, I received your _Logica Genevensis_, or _Fourth Check to Antinomianism_; and am truly sorry to find that neither the spirit of the piece, nor the doctrine it contains, is a jot better than what appeared in the former Checks.”