The next onslaught was more authoritative and serious. On August 1, 1739, Edmund Gibson, Bishop of London, published his “Pastoral Letter,” of fifty-five pages, “to the People of his Diocese; especially those of the two great cities of London and Westminster: by way of Caution against Lukewarmness on one hand, and Enthusiasm on the other.” Two-thirds of this prelatical pamphlet are on enthusiasm, and are levelled against the Methodists. Numerous extracts are given from Whitefield’s Journal, to show—1. That these enthusiasts claim to have _extraordinary communications_ with God, and more than ordinary assurances of a special _presence_ with them. 2. That they have a special and immediate _mission_ from God. 3. That they think and act under the immediate guidance of a _Divine inspiration_. 4. That they speak of their preaching and expounding, and the effects of them, as the sole work of a _Divine power_. 5. That they boast of sudden and surprising effects as wrought by the _Holy Ghost_ in consequence of their preaching. 6. That they claim the spirit of _prophecy_. 7. That they speak of themselves in the language, and under the character, of _apostles_ of Christ, and even of _Christ_ Himself. 8. That they profess to plant and propagate a _new gospel_, as unknown to the generality of ministers and people, in a Christian country. 9. That they endeavour to justify their own _extraordinary_ methods of teaching, by casting unworthy reflections upon the parochial clergy, as deficient in the discharge of their duty, and not instructing their people in the true doctrines of Christianity. Thirteen days after the “Pastoral Letter” was published, Whitefield wrote an answer to it, and, in a firm but quiet and respectful way, replied to all the bishop’s allegations. He concludes by charging Gibson with propagating a new gospel, because he asserts, that “good works are a _necessary condition_ of our being justified in the sight of God.” He maintains that _faith_ is the only necessary condition, and that _good works_ are the necessary fruit and consequence. “This,” he writes, “is the doctrine of Jesus Christ; this is the doctrine of the Church of England; and it is, because the generality of the clergy of the Church of England do not preach this doctrine, that I am resolved, God being my helper, to continue instant in season and out of season, to declare it unto all men, let the consequences, as to my own private person, be what they will.” If the bishop really believed his accusations to be true, his pastoral is a model of meek writing. On the other hand, Whitefield’s answer is one of the smartest productions of his pen; its pith and point somewhat reminding us of the terseness which characterized his friend Wesley.