About three weeks after the date of this letter, Whitefield set sail for England, bringing his manuscript with him. On his arrival in London, in March, 1741, he submitted it to Charles Wesley, who returned it to the author, endorsed with the words: “Put up again thy sword into its place.” The pamphlet, however, was published; and Whitefield gave Wesley notice, that he was resolved publicly to preach against him and his brother wherever he went. Wesley complained to Whitefield—1. That it was imprudent to publish his letter, because it was only putting weapons into the hands of those who hated them. 2. That, if he really was constrained to bear his testimony on the subject, he might have done it by issuing a treatise without ever calling Wesley’s name in question. 3. That what he had published was a mere burlesque upon an answer. 4. That he had said enough, however, of what was wholly foreign to the question, to make an open, and probably irreparable, breach between them. Wesley added:— “You rank all the maintainers of _universal redemption_ with Socinians. Alas, my brother! Do you not know even this, that Socinians allow no redemption at all? that Socinus himself speaks thus, ‘_Tota redemptio nostra per Christum metaphora_’? How easy were it for me to hit many other palpable blots, in what you call an answer to my sermon! And how, above measure, contemptible would you then appear to all impartial men, either of sense or learning! But, I assure you, my hand shall not be upon you. The Lord be judge between me and thee! The general tenour, both of my public and private exhortations, when I touch thereon at all, as even my enemies know, if they would testify, is ‘Spare the young man, even Absalom, for my sake!’”[377] David and Jonathan were divided. An immediate schism followed. Wesley writes:—“In March, 1741, Mr. Whitefield, being returned to England, entirely separated from Mr. Wesley and his friends, because he did not hold the decrees. Here was the first breach, which warm men persuaded Mr. Whitefield to make merely for a difference of opinion. Those who believed universal redemption had no desire to separate; but those who held particular redemption would not hear of any accommodation, being determined to have no fellowship with men that were ‘in such dangerous errors.’ So there were now two sorts of Methodists: those for particular, and those for general, redemption.”[378] Here, for the present, we leave the subject; and turn to other matters.