Programmable Logic Controllers 5th

Edition Petruzella Solutions Manual

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://testbankdeal.com/download/programmable-logic-controllers-5th-edition-petruz
ella-solutions-manual/
Programmable Logic Controllers 5th Edition Petruzella Solutions Manual

Answers to Chapter 2 Review Questions

1. To accept signals from the machine or process devices and to convert them into signals that
can be used by the controller

2. To convert controller signals into external signals that are used to control the machine or
process

3. a) A rack that is located away from the processor module near the field devices
b) To minimize the amount of wiring required

4. By its address

5. Type refers to an input or output

Slot refers to the physical location of the I/O module
Word and bit refers to the actual module terminal connection

6. Bit level addressing specifies a discrete device that is connected to a specific terminal. Word
level addressing specifies an analog device connected to a module that uses a word of
information.

7. In tag-based addressing you use a tag (alphanumeric name) to address data (variables). In
rack/slot-based addressing a fixed numeric format is used to identify the address data.

8. An input/output PC interface card

9. Combination I/O modules

10. Connections for the power supply

11. For ease of wiring and replacing modules

12. The advantage with the high-density module is that it is possible to install up to 64 inputs or
outputs in one slot for greater space savings. The disadvantage is that the high-density output
modules cannot handle as much current per output.

13. ON/OFF devices such as selector switches, pushbuttons and limit switches

14. ON/OFF devices such as lights, solenoids and motor starters

15. The backplane supplies current and voltage for the modules from the power supply

16. An optical isolator is used to provide electrical isolation between the field wiring and the
PLC backplane internal circuitry.

Visit TestBankDeal.com to get complete for all chapters

17. Power and Logic sections

18. Senses when a signal is received

Converts the input signal to the correct voltage level
Isolates the PLC from the input voltage or current
Sends a signal to the processor indicating which sensor originated the signal

19. Triac

20. a) 1 amp per point

b) A control relay is connected to the output module. The contacts of the control relay are
then used to control the larger load.

21. Transistor

22. A discrete relay-type module uses an electromechanical relay element for switching which
allow it to work for AC or DC applications.

23. a) Sinking and sourcing are terms used to describe a current signal flow relationship
between field input and output devices in a control system and their power supply.
b) Sourcing

24. Discrete I/O modules allow only ON/OFF devices to be connected. Analog I/O modules
allow analog or varying voltage or current devices to be connected.

25. Used to convert analog signals to an equivalent digital value

26. Used to convert digital signals to an equivalent analog value

27. Voltage sensing and current sensing

28. Temperature, speed, level, flow, weight, pressure, and position

29. A twisted shielded pair cable is used in wiring the circuit to reduce unwanted electrical noise
signals that can be induced in the conductors from other wiring

30. Unipolar modules can accept an input signal that varies in the positive direction only. Bipolar
signals swing between a maximum negative value and a maximum positive value.

31. The analog input channel is capable of sensing voltages down to 0.3V increments.

32. The loop power may be supplied by the sensor or may be provided by the analog output
module

33. Control valves, chart recorder, electronic drives

34. a) Used to count pulses such as motor encoders that occur at very high speeds
b) Allows the use of thumbwheel switches for feeding information to a PLC
c) Allows the transmitting and receiving of TTL signals for communication with the PLC’s
processor
d) Used to monitor the output of incremental or absolute encoders
e) Allows the transmitting and receiving of ASCII files
f) Provides pulse trains to a stepper-motor translator, which enables control of a stepper
motor
g) Enables a PLC to operate devices that require BCD-coded signals

35. a) Used to maintain a process variable such as temperature, flow, level, or speed within set
limits of a specified set point.
b) Used in applications involving accurate high-speed machining and packaging operations
c) Used to establish point-to-pint connections with other intelligent devices for the exchange
of data

36. a) Specifies the magnitude and type of voltage signal that will be accepted by the input
b) Specifies a minimum ON-state voltage that is the minimum voltage at which logic 1 is
recognized as absolutely ON; and a maximum OFF-state voltage which is the voltage at
which logic 0 is recognized as absolutely OFF
c) Specifies the minimum input current that the input devices must be capable of driving to
operate the input circuit
d) Specifies what the maximum temperature of the air surrounding the I/O modules should
be for best operating conditions
e) Specifies the maximum time duration required by an input module's circuitry to
recognize that a field device has switched ON (input ON-delay) or switched OFF (input
OFF-delay)
f) Specifies the magnitude and type of user supply voltage at which a discrete output
module is designed to operate
g) Specifies the maximum current that a single output and the module as a whole can safely
carry under load (at rated voltage)
h) Specifies the maximum inrush current and duration for which an output circuit can
exceed its maximum continuous current rating
i) This specification will designate whether the particular module's design has individual
protection for each circuit or if fuse protection is provided for groups (e.g. 4 or 8) of outputs
j) Specifies the amount of current still conducting through an output circuit even after the
output has been turned off
k) Rates the module's capacity for sustaining an excessive voltage at its input or output
terminal
l) This specification defines the number of field inputs or outputs that can be connected to a
single module
m) This value indicates the amount of current the module requires from the backplane

37. a) Specifies the number of analog channels that can be connected to the module
b) The voltage or current signal ranges that an analog input module is designed to accept
c) This specification defines the current or voltage signal ranges that a particular analog
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
from sin, attainable in an instant, by simple faith, was becoming popular
among the Methodists, he not only weighed the doctrine in the balances
of holy Scripture, but did his utmost to ascertain what those who
professed to experience it had to say concerning it. There was much to be
disapproved; but there was also much to be encouraged. In the midst of
the agitation, Wesley wrote, “Otley, July 7, 1761:”
“The perfection I teach, is perfect love; loving God with all
the heart: receiving Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King, to
reign alone over all our thoughts, words, and actions. The
papists neither teach nor believe this; give even the devil his
due. They teach there is no perfection here, which is not
consistent with venial sins; and among venial sins they
commonly reckon fornication. Now this is so far from the
perfection I teach, that it does not come up to any but Mr.
Relly’s perfection. To say, Christ will not reign alone in our
hearts, in this life, will not enable us to give Him all our
hearts. This, in my judgment, is making Him half a Saviour;
He can be no more, if He does not quite save us from our
sins.”[456]
In another letter, dated “December 26, 1761,” he says:
“I know many who love God with all their heart, mind,
soul, and strength. He is their one desire, their one delight,
and they are continually happy in Him. They love their
neighbour as themselves. They feel as sincere, fervent,
constant a desire for the happiness of every man, good or bad,
friend or enemy, as for their own. They rejoice evermore, pray
without ceasing, and in everything give thanks. Their souls
are continually streaming up to God in holy joy, prayer, and
praise. This is plain, sound, scriptural experience. And of this
we have more and more living witnesses.
“But these souls dwell in a shattered, corruptible body, and
are so pressed down thereby, that they cannot exert their love
as they would, by always thinking, speaking, and acting
precisely right. For want of better bodily organs, they
sometimes inevitably think, speak, or act wrong. Yet, I think,
they need the advocacy of Christ, even for these involuntary
defects; although, they do not imply a defect of love, but of
understanding. However that be, I cannot doubt the fact. They
 are all love; yet they cannot walk as they desire. ‘But are they
all love while they grieve the Holy Spirit?’ No surely: they
are then fallen from their steadfastness; and this they may do
even after they are sealed. So that, even to such, strong
cautions are needful. After the heart is cleansed from pride,
anger, and desire, it may suffer them to re-enter. Therefore, I
have long thought, some expressions in the hymns are
abundantly too strong; as I cannot perceive any state
mentioned in Scripture from which we may not, in a measure
at least, fall.”[457]
As already stated, much loose language on the subject of entire
sanctification was employed; though, for this, Wesley can hardly be held
responsible. Still it gave offence, and created disquietude. Grimshaw
wrote to Wesley a letter, dated “July 23, 1761,” complaining, that even
some of the preachers had said: “He is a child of the devil, who
disbelieves the doctrine of sinless perfection; and he is no true Christian,
who has not attained to it.” Grimshaw adds:
“Brother Lee declared, (and I could not but believe him,)
that you did, and would utterly reject any such expressions.
Sinless perfection is a grating term to many of our dear
brethren; even to those who are as desirous to be holy in heart
and life, as any perhaps of them who affect to speak in this
unscriptural way. Should we not discountenance the use of it,
and advise its votaries to exchange it for terms less offensive,
but sufficiently expressive of true Christian holiness? By this,
I mean all that holiness of heart and life, which is literally,
plainly, abundantly taught us all over the Bible; and without
which no man, however justified through faith in the
righteousness of Christ, can ever expect to see the Lord. This
is that holiness, that Christian perfection, that sanctification,
which without affecting strange, fulsome, offensive,
unscriptural expressions, I ardently desire and strenuously
labour to attain. This is attainable: for this let us contend; to
this let us diligently exhort and excite all our brethren daily;
and this the more as we see the day—the happy, the glorious
day—approaching.”[458]
Wesley acted upon Grimshaw’s hint; and, before the conference in
London broke up, preached from the text, “In many things we offend
all;” from which he took occasion to observe—(1) That, as long as the
soul is connected with the body, it cannot think but by the help of bodily
organs. (2) As long as these organs are imperfect, we shall be liable to
mistakes, both speculative and practical. (3) For all these we need the
atoning blood, as indeed for every defect or omission. Therefore, (4) All
men have need to say daily, forgive us our trespasses.[459]
About the same time, he preached and published his sermon on
“Wandering Thoughts,” in which he lays it down, that every man, either
in sleep, or from some other cause, is, more or less, innocently delirious
every four-and-twenty hours; and that the only “wandering thoughts,”
which are sinful, and from which we should pray to be delivered, are—
(1) All those thoughts which wander from God, and leave Him no room
in the mind; (2) all which spring from sinful tempers; (3) all which
produce or feed sinful tempers. In summing up the whole, he writes: “To
expect deliverance from wandering thoughts, occasioned by evil spirits,
is to expect that the devil should die or fall asleep. To expect deliverance
from those which are occasioned by other men, is to expect, either that
men should cease from the earth, or that we should be absolutely
secluded from them. And to pray for deliverance from those which are
occasioned by the body, is, in effect, to pray that we may leave the
body.”
The sermon is well worth reading; and, at the time, was of the utmost
importance, in checking the fanaticism of the London Methodists
respecting what they called the sanctification of the mind.
Conference being ended, Wesley “spent a fortnight more in London,
guarding both the preachers and people against running into extremes on
the one hand or the other”; and then, on Sunday, September 20, set off,
by coach, to Bristol, where he employed the next six weeks. “Here
likewise,” he writes, “I had the satisfaction to observe a considerable
increase in the work of God. The congregations were exceeding large,
and the people hungering and thirsting after righteousness; and every day
afforded us fresh instances of persons convinced of sin, or converted to
God. Indeed, God was pleased to pour out His Spirit this year, on every
part both of England and Ireland; perhaps, in a manner we had never
seen before; certainly not for twenty years. Oh what pity, that so many
even of the children of God did not know the day of their visitation!”
At Kingswood the society, which had been much diminished, had now
again nearly three hundred members, “many of whom,” says he, “were
now athirst for full redemption, which for some years they had almost
forgotten.” He desired all in Bristol and its neighbourhood, who believed
themselves to be entirely sanctified, to meet him. About eighteen
responded. He says, “I examined them severally, as exactly as I could;
and I could not find anything in their tempers (supposing they spoke
true) any way contrary to their profession.”
On October 31, Wesley returned to London, and immediately began a
course of sermons on Christian perfection. On November 23 he went to
Canterbury, where he found many with “a deeper work of God in their
heart than they ever had before.” On Sunday, November 29, he writes:
“We had a lovefeast in London, at which several declared the blessings
they had found lately. We need not be careful by what name to call them,
while the thing is beyond dispute. Many have, and many do daily,
experience an unspeakable change. After being deeply convinced of
inbred sin, particularly of pride, self will, and unbelief, in a moment,
they feel all faith and love; no pride, no self will, or anger; and, from that
moment, they have continual fellowship with God, always rejoicing,
praying, and giving thanks. Whoever ascribes such a change to the devil,
I ascribe it to the Spirit of God.”
With the exception of a brief visit to Colchester, the remainder of the
year was spent in London, part of the time being occupied in writing
“Farther Thoughts on Christian Perfection,” and part in removing
misunderstandings fomented by Thomas Maxfield and others, which will
have to be more fully noticed in ensuing pages.
The following letter to Charles Wesley, who was out of health, is full
of interest.
“L , December 26, 1761.
“D B ,—Spend as many hours in the
congregation as you can; but exercise alone will strengthen
your lungs; or electrifying, which I wonder you did not try
long ago. Never start at its being a quack medicine. I desire
no other; particularly since I was so nearly murdered by being
cured of my ague secundum artem. You should always write
standing and sloping.
“We are always in danger of enthusiasm; but I think no
more now than any time these twenty years. The word of God
runs indeed, and loving faith spreads on every side. Do not
 take my word, or any one else’s; but come and see. It is good
to be in London now.
“It is impossible for me to correct my own books. I
sometimes think it strange, that I have not one preacher that
will and can. I think every one of them owes me so much
service.
“Pray tell R. Sheen, I am hugely displeased at his reprinting
the Nativity Hymns, and omitting the very best hymn in the
collection,—‘All glory to God in the sky,’ etc.
“I beg they may never more be printed without it. Omit one
or two, and I will thank you. They are namby-pambical. I
wish you would give us two or three invitatory hymns; we
want such exceedingly. My love to Sally. My wife gains
ground. Adieu!
“J W .”[460]

This was an eventful year. Charles Wesley was ill, and out of town.
Wesley was most of the time employed in visiting country societies.
London was left in the hands of inexperienced and enthusiastic guides;
and a great work of God was injured by the fanaticism of well meaning
but weak minded people. But more of this anon.
The year began with an attack, in the London Magazine, on the
Methodist doctrine of assurance, the writer taking upon himself to say,
that “the Methodists insist, that they themselves are sure of salvation; but
that all others are outcasts from God’s favour, and in a damnable
state.”[461] In other articles, in the same periodical, Wesley was branded
as “an enemy to religion, and a deceiver of the people;” “an enthusiast, a
very great enthusiast;” with no more “knowledge of and esteem for the
holy Scriptures than a Mahommedan.”[462] It is affirmed, that one of
Wesley’s preachers, “who instructed the good people of England, at or
near Rye, in Sussex, was known to be a popish priest, by a gentleman,
who was no stranger to his person and functions in foreign parts.” The
writer continues: “the Methodists may with as much reason be
considered good sons of the Church, as an unruly boy that runs away
from his parents may be deemed a dutiful, obedient child. I can consider
them only as spies, deserters, and incendiaries. Was I to form a judgment
of Christ’s disciples by your followers, very just would be the sarcasm of
Zosimus on Christianity, ‘That it was only a sanctuary for villains,’”[463]
In fact, “Methodism was a spurious mixture of enthusiasm and
blasphemy, popery and quakerism.”[464]
Wesley replied to this anonymous scribbler, in a characteristic letter,
dated “February 17, 1761,” and addressed “to Mr. G. R., alias R. A.,
alias M. K., alias R. W.” He writes: “As you are stout, be merciful; or I
shall never be able to stand it. Four attacks in one month! and pushed so
home! Well, I must defend myself as I can.” And defend himself he did,
most trenchantly.[465]
Another writer described the Methodists as “a race of men, which
seemed to bear a near resemblance to the new species of rats. They were
amphibious creatures, between the church and the conventicle, as those
animals are between land and water. They made settlements in every part
of the country, and devoured the fruits of the earth; they drew the simple
folk from that necessary business, which God and nature designed them
for, to the great loss, if not total ruin, of their families; and they filled
men’s heads with doubts and fears, and emptied their pockets of their
money.”[466]
Further attacks were made in Lloyd’s Evening Post, and in other
periodicals, but of a more moderate and courteous character; with the
exception of an infamous article in St. James’s Chronicle, in which
Whitefield is ridiculed, in a long, lying piece, entitled “Similes,
Metaphors, and Familiar Allusions made use of by Dr. Squintum.” There
was likewise published a scandalous pamphlet of thirty-two pages,
bearing the title of “A Journal of the Travels of Nathaniel Snip, a
Methodist Teacher of the Word; containing an account of the marvellous
adventures which befel him on his way from the town of Kingston upon
Hull to the city of York.” Another production was an octavo pamphlet, of
forty-three pages, entitled, “An Address to the Right Honourable ——;
with several Letters to the D—— of —— from the L——. In vindication
of her conduct on being charged with Methodism.” In this high sounding
piece of preposterous pretentiousness, Methodist preachers are described
as men who “think their assurance to be the gift, and their nonsense to be
the dictates, of the Holy Ghost.” They are like some of the “designing
men” mentioned by Tillotson, who “recommend themselves to the
ignorant, by talking against reason, just as nurses endear themselves to
children by noise and nonsense.”
 The most respectable onslaught, in 1761, was in two sermons,
preached before the university of Oxford, at St. Mary’s, on Act Sunday,
July 12, by Dr. Hitchcock, fellow of St. John’s college, and one of the
preachers at his majesty’s chapel at Whitehall; and on July 19, by the
Rev. John Allen, M.A., vice principal of St. Mary Magdalene hall.” Dr.
Hitchcock’s sermon was entitled, “The mutual Connection between
Faith, Virtue, and Knowledge,” and was published at the request of the
vice chancellor, and the heads of houses; Mr. Allen’s bore the title of
“No Acceptance with God by Faith only,” and was published at the
request of the vice chancellor alone. There can be little doubt, that this
was a concerted movement, and was intended to be an unanswerable
refutation of Wesley’s heresies. Of course, such men were not likely to
employ the coarse abuse which newspapers and magazines were wont to
cast upon the Methodists; but even here, in St. Mary’s, before the
university of Oxford, where Methodism had its rise, and after it had
existed and triumphed for more than twenty years, Dr. Hitchcock coolly
told the vice chancellor, the heads of houses, and his illustrious
congregation, that the Methodists were men of “no knowledge”; that
they were building “up a church upon enthusiasm, rhapsody, and
nonsense”; and Mr. Allen “willingly undertook” to refute “the leading
tenet of modern enthusiasm by proving the following proposition, That
faith, in its highest degree, when alone, or distinct from other virtues, is
so far from saving or justifying any person, that it doth not necessarily
produce good works.”
Wesley himself was too busy, in 1761, to write and publish much. His
productions were the following.
1. “A Plain Account of Genuine Christianity.” 12mo, 12 pages. This
was simply a reprint of the conclusion of Wesley’s letter to Dr.
Middleton, published in 1749. Wesley’s description of a Christian, and of
Christian faith, in this little tract, deserves the reader’s best attention.
2. “An Extract of the Rev. Mr. John Wesley’s Journal, from February
16, 1755, to June 16, 1758.” 12mo, 146 pages.
3. “Select Hymns: with Tunes Annexed: designed chiefly for the Use
of the People called Methodists.” 12mo, 139 pages. Would that the
Methodists of the present day would sing the tunes furnished by their
founder, instead of leaving choirs to repeat, parrot like, the inane noises
now too generally attached to Charles Wesley’s glorious and glowing
hymns, and which, by a monstrous perversion of truth, taste, and
language, are considered sacred music of pure and classic type. We are
weary of such singing in Methodist chapels, and most deeply deplore the
day when, by some mistaken theoriser, it was introduced. It is devouring
the very vitals of Methodistic worship, and no more harmonizes with the
Wesley hymns than an automatic scarecrow with a breathing, living man.
Musicians, in Wesley’s day, were as self conceited and as obstinate as
musicians now. In the preface to his Tunes Annexed, he tells us:
“I have been endeavouring, for more than twenty years, to
procure such a book as this; but in vain. Masters of music
were above following any direction but their own; and I was
determined, whoever compiled this should follow my
direction: not mending our tunes, but setting them down,
neither better nor worse than they were. At length, I have
prevailed. The following collection contains all the tunes
which are in common use among us. They are pricked true,
exactly as I desire all our congregations may sing them; and
here is prefixed to them a collection of those hymns which
are, I think, some of the best we have published. The volume
likewise is small, as well as the price. This, therefore, I
recommend, preferable to all others.”
Appended to the tunes are Wesley’s well known directions concerning
singing, which it would be well if all his societies would follow. Wesley
himself was full of music, and to this, in great part, may be attributed the
glorious singing of the early Methodists. With such a leader, and with
their hearts full of the love of God, it is not surprising that their service
of praise has become proverbial. They sang with the spirit, and with the
understanding also.
It may be added here, once for all, that Wesley’s book of music, with
some variations and improvements, was republished in several
succeeding years, with the altered titles of “Sacred Melody; or, a Choice
Collection of Psalm and Hymn Tunes”; and “Sacred Harmony: or, a
Choice Collection of Psalm and Hymn Tunes, in two or three Parts—for
the Voice, Harpsichord, and Organ.” These editions are now before us;
but further description is unnecessary.
 1762
1762
Age 59 W HITEFIELD and Charles Wesley were still invalids, and,
though they preached with more or less frequency, their
evangelistic labours, in 1762, were limited when compared with
the labours of former years.
Wesley began the year with a grand service, in the chapel at
Spitalfields, at which nearly two thousand members of the London
society were present. Besides Berridge and Maxfield, he was assisted by
Benjamin Colley, a young man, born at Tollerton, near Easingwold, who
had recently received episcopal ordination, and was now officiating, as a
clergyman, in Methodist chapels. His ministerial gifts were small;[467]
but his piety was sincere and earnest. Strangely enough, this young
Yorkshire Levite was carried away by the fanatical enthusiasm of Bell
and Maxfield (to be noticed shortly), and though he did not live more
than half-a-dozen years afterwards, his life was clouded, and not what it
might have been.[468]
The remarkable work of sanctification was rapidly spreading
throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. Wesley wrote:
“Many have been convinced of sin, many justified, and
many backsliders healed. But the peculiar work of this season
has been, what St. Paul calls ‘the perfecting of the saints.’
Many persons in London, in Bristol, in York, and in various
parts, both of England and Ireland, have experienced so deep
and universal a change, as it had not entered into their hearts
to conceive. After a deep conviction of inbred sin, of their
total fall from God, they have been so filled with faith and
love (and generally in a moment), that sin vanished, and they
found, from that time, no pride, anger, desire, or unbelief.
They could rejoice evermore, pray without ceasing, and in
everything give thanks. Now, whether we call this the
destruction or suspension of sin, it is a glorious work of God;
such a work as, considering both the depth and extent of it,
we never saw in these kingdoms before. It is possible some
have been mistaken; and it is certain some have lost what they
then received. A few (very few, compared to the whole
 number) first gave way to enthusiasm, then to pride, next to
prejudice and offence, and at last separated from their
brethren. But although this laid a huge stumbling block in the
way, still the work of God went on. Nor has it ceased to this
day in any of its branches. God still convinces, justifies,
sanctifies. We have lost only the dross, the enthusiasm, the
prejudice, and offence. The pure gold remains, faith working
by love, and, we have ground to believe, increases daily.”[469]
This was written at the end of 1763. On the last day of 1762, Wesley
remarked in his Journal: “I looked back on the past year; a year of
uncommon trials and uncommon blessings. Abundance have been
convinced of sin; very many have found peace with God; and, in London
only, I believe full two hundred have been brought into glorious liberty.
And, yet, I have had more care and trouble in six months, than in several
years preceding. What the end will be, I know not; but it is enough that
God knoweth.”
To understand Wesley’s allusions here, we must briefly glance at the
history of two of the principal men concerned.
Thomas Maxfield was one of Wesley’s first preachers. For more than
twenty years, he had acted under Wesley’s direction. His origin in Bristol
was humble, but he had married a wife with considerable fortune. At
Wesley’s instigation, a friend had recommended him to Dr. Barnard,
bishop of Londonderry, for ordination. The bishop said, “Sir, I ordain
you, to assist that good man, that he may not work himself to death.”[470]
Maxfield thus became one of Wesley’s most important preachers; and,
perhaps, this was one of the reasons why not a few regarded him with
envy. At all events, many censured him; and Wesley “continually and
strenuously defended him; thereby offending several of his preachers,
and a great number of his people.”
As early as 1760, Wesley had appointed Maxfield to meet, every
Friday, a sort of select band in London, consisting of Messrs. Biggs,
Latlets, Calvert, and Dixon,[471] all of whom professed to be entirely
sanctified. Some of these favoured ones soon had dreams, visions, and
impressions, as they thought, from God; and Maxfield, instead of
repressing their whimsies, encouraged them. Presently, their visions
created contempt for those who had them not; and were regarded as
proofs of the highest grace. Some of the preachers opposed these holy
visionaries with a considerable amount of roughness. This excited their
resentment. They refused to hear their rebukers preach, and followed
after Maxfield. Their numbers multiplied; and Maxfield told them, they
were not to be taught by man, especially by those who had less grace
than themselves. The result was, when Wesley returned to London in
October, 1762, he found the society in an uproar, and Maxfield’s friends
formed into a sort of detached connexion. Enthusiasm, pride, and intense
uncharitableness were now the chief characteristics of these high
professors. Wesley tenderly reproved them. One of them resented, and
cried out, “We will not be browbeaten any longer; we will throw off the
mask;” and, accordingly, returned her own and her husband’s tickets,
saying, “Sir, we will have no more to do with you; Mr. Maxfield is our
teacher.”
At the conference of 1761, Maxfield had been arraigned, for some
misdemeanour not specified; but Wesley spoke in his defence, and
silenced his accusers.[472] Still Wesley was in doubt concerning him, and
wrote him a long letter, telling him mildly all he heard or feared
concerning him. Maxfield resented, and said he had no thought of a
separation, and that Wesley was at liberty to call him John or Judas,
Moses or Korah, as he pleased. He alleged, that Wesley and his brother
contradicted the highest truths; and that almost all who “called
themselves ministers of Christ, or preachers of Christ, contended for sin
to remain in the heart as long as we live, as though it was the only thing
Christ delighted to behold in His members.”
George Bell, a native of Barningham, near Barnard castle, had been a
corporal in the Life Guards. He was converted in the year 1758, and
pretended to be sanctified in the month of March, 1761. A few days
afterwards, he wrote an account of this to Wesley, in a letter tinged with
a frenzy, which Wesley was too ready to regard as the breathings of a
superior piety.[473] Bell soon developed into a full blown enthusiast, and
helped to taint not a few of his Methodist associates. He began to hold
meetings of his own, declaring, that God had done with all preachings
and sacraments, and was to be found nowhere but in the assemblies of
himself and his London friends.[474] He diligently propagated the
principle, that “none could teach those who are renewed in love, unless
they were in the state themselves.”[475] His admirers fancied themselves
more holy than our first parents, and incapable of falling. They professed
to have the gift of healing, and actually attempted to give eyesight to the
blind, and to raise the dead.[476] From a misconstrued text in the
Revelation, they inferred, that they were to be exempt from death.[477]
Wesley writes, on November 24, 1762: “Being determined to hear for
myself, I stood where I could hear and see, without being seen. George
Bell prayed, in the whole, pretty near an hour. His fervour of spirit I
could not but admire. I afterwards told him what I did not admire;
namely, (1) his screaming, every now and then, in so strange a manner,
that one could scarce tell what he said; (2) his thinking he had the
miraculous discernment of spirits; and, (3) his sharply condemning his
opposers.”
Meanwhile, Wesley and his brother had an interview with Maxfield,
and found that, in some things, he had been blamed without a cause;
other things he promised to alter. On November 1, 1762, Wesley sent to
Maxfield, Bell, and others, a written statement of what he liked and
disliked in their doctrine, spirit, and behaviour. In reference to the first,
he says, he liked their “doctrine of perfection or love excluding sin; their
insisting that it is merely by faith; that it is instantaneous, though
preceded and followed by a gradual work; and, that it may be now, at this
instant.” But he disliked their “supposing man may be as perfect as an
angel; that he can be absolutely perfect; that he can be infallible, or
above being tempted; or, that the moment he is pure in heart, he cannot
fall from it.” He disliked their “depreciating justification, by saying a
justified person is not born of God, and that he cannot please God, nor
grow in grace.” He disliked their doctrine, that a sanctified person needs
no self examination, no private prayer; and that he cannot be taught by
any one who is not in the same state as himself.
Then, in reference to their spirit, he told them, that he liked their
confidence in God, and their zeal for the salvation of sinners; but he
disliked (1) their appearance of pride, of overvaluing themselves, and
undervaluing others; (2) their enthusiasm, namely, overvaluing feelings
and impressions, mistaking the mere work of the imagination for the
voice of the Spirit, expecting the end without the means, and
undervaluing reason, knowledge, and wisdom in general; (3) their
antinomianism, in not magnifying the law enough, in not sufficiently
valuing tenderness of conscience, and in using faith rather as
contradistinguished from holiness than as productive of it; and (4), their
littleness of love to their brethren, their want of union with them, their
want of meekness, their impatience of contradiction, their counting every
man an enemy who reproved or admonished them in love, their bigotry
and narrowness of spirit, and their censoriousness or proneness to think
hardly of all who did not agree with them.
 As to their outward behaviour, he liked “the general tenour of their
life, devoted to God, and spent in doing good”; but he disliked their
slighting any of the rules of the society; their appointing meetings which
hindered people attending the public preaching; their spending more time
in their meetings than many of them could spare from the duties of their
calling; the speaking or praying of several of them at once; their praying
to the Son of God only, or more than to the Father; their using bold,
pompous, magnificent, if not irreverent, expressions in prayer; their
extolling themselves rather than God, and telling Him what they were,
not what they wanted; their using poor, flat, bald hymns; their never
kneeling at prayer, and using postures or gestures highly indecent; their
screaming so as to make what they said unintelligible; their affirming
people will be justified or sanctified just now, and bidding them say, ‘I
believe’; and their bitterly condemning all who oppose them, calling
them wolves, and pronouncing them hypocrites, or not justified.”
This is a mournful picture, especially of people making such high
professions. The result was, the London society was thrown into great
confusion. Wesley writes: “1762, November 8—I began visiting the
classes; in many of which we had hot spirits to deal with. Some were
vehement for, some against, the meetings for prayer, which were in
several parts of the town. I said little, being afraid of taking any step
which I might afterwards repent of.”
The delay in the exercise of discipline was too long. For twelve
months, Wesley had seen it necessary to deal with these enthusiasts. At
the beginning of 1762, he wrote to his brother: “If Thomas Maxfield
continue as he is, it is impossible he should long continue with us. But I
live in hope of better things. This week, I have begun to speak my mind
concerning five or six honest enthusiasts. But I move only a hair’s
breadth at a time. No sharpness will profit. There is need of a lady’s
hand, as well as a lion’s heart.”
We incline to think Wesley used the lady’s hand too long, and that the
lion’s paw would have been far more useful. At length, however, he
began to preach on the subject. On December 5, 1762, he endeavoured to
show in what sense sanctification is gradual, and in what sense it is
instantaneous. A fortnight later, he preached on Christian simplicity,
showing that it is not ignorance or folly, nor enthusiasm or credulity; but
faith, humility, willingness to be taught, and freedom from evil
reasonings. Despite all this, Bell waxed worse and worse; and, on
December 26, Wesley desired him to take no further part in the services
at West Street, or at the Foundery. “The reproach of Christ,” he writes, “I
am willing to bear; but not the reproach of enthusiasm, if I can help it.”
In a manuscript letter, dated “London, January 28, 1763,” Sarah Crosby
writes:
“There has been much confusion here. The simple brethren
keep meeting at various places, brother Bell being their chief
speaker. The substance of what they say is, ‘Believe, and be
simple. Believe all that is in the word of God, and all that is
not there,—that is, if anything is revealed to you.’ They say
they have a great gift in discerning spirits; but others dispute
it. Nevertheless, I think they are good folk, and there has been
a great outpouring of the Spirit in London these two or three
years past.”
About the same time, Fletcher of Madeley wrote to Charles Wesley—
“I have a particular regard for Mr. Maxfield and Mr. Bell;
both of them are my correspondents. I am strongly prejudiced
in favour of the witnesses, and do not willingly receive what
is said against them; but allowing that what is reported is one
half mere exaggeration, the tenth part of the rest shows that
spiritual pride, presumption, arrogance, stubbornness, party
spirit, uncharitableness, prophetic mistakes,—in short, every
sinew of enthusiasm, is now at work among them. I do not
credit any one’s bare word; but I ground my sentiments on
Bell’s own letters.”[478]
Bell consummated his fanaticism, by prophesying that the world
would be brought to an end on February 28, 1763; and, strange to say,
not a few believed him. The evil spread. Wesley preached sermons on
the sin of division, and on judging; but what he said was “turned into
poison” by those who needed his admonitions; and one of the friends of
Bell remarked: “If the devil had been in the pulpit, he would not have
preached such a sermon.” Meanwhile, Maxfield was privately promoting
disunion, telling the people that Wesley was not capable of teaching
them, and insinuating that no one was except himself. Mrs. Coventry
came to Wesley, and threw down the tickets of herself, her husband, her
daughters, and her servants, declaring that “they would hear two
doctrines no longer, and that Mr. Maxfield preached perfection, but Mr.
Wesley pulled it down.” About a dozen others, including Bell, copied
Mrs. Coventry’s example. Maxfield, in a huff, removed his meeting of
the sanctified from the Foundery, because Wesley instructed his
preachers to be present at it, whenever he was not able to be there
himself. One of the seceders told Wesley to his face, that he was a
hypocrite, and, for that reason, they had resolved to have no further
fellowship with him. About thirty, who thought themselves sanctified,
had left the society; but there were above four hundred others, who
witnessed the same confession, and seemed more united than ever.
Meanwhile, the 28th of February, 1763—George Bell’s day of
judgment—drew nigh. Wesley denounced the mad corporal’s
prognostication, in private, in the society meetings, in the pulpit, and, at
length, in the public papers. He says that Maxfield was silent on the
subject, and that he had reason to think he was a believer in Bell’s
prophecy; though Maxfield himself afterwards denied that this was
true.[479] Be that as it might, a number of Maxfield’s followers spent the
night at the house of his most intimate friend, Mr. Biggs, every moment
in full expectation of hearing the blast of the archangel’s trumpet.
On the day previous to the predicted final catastrophe, Bell and his
believers ascended a mound near the site of St. Luke’s hospital, to have a
last look at the city before its conflagration;[480] but, unfortunately for
the mad prophet, two constables, with a warrant, arrested him, and
carried him first before a magistrate in Long Acre, and then before
another in Southwark, as it was there, “in an unlicensed meeting-house,
that he had often vented his blasphemies.” The Borough magistrate
committed him to the new prison, there to await the fulfilment of his
prediction.[481] “I am sorry,” writes Whitefield, “to find that Mr. Bell is
taken up. To take no notice would be the best method. A prison or
outward punishment is but a poor cure for enthusiasm, or a disordered
understanding. It may increase but not extinguish such an ignis
fatuus.”[482]
On the evening of what was to be the world’s last day, Wesley
preached at Spitalfields, on “Prepare to meet thy God”; and largely
showed the utter absurdity of the supposition, that the world was to end
as Bell predicted; but, notwithstanding all that he could say, many were
afraid to go to bed, and some wandered in the fields, being persuaded
that, if the world at large did not become a wreck, at all events an
earthquake would engulf London.
Of course, Bell’s insane ravings turned out to be a fantastic falsehood;
but the injury done to Methodism was serious. A writer, signing himself
“Philodemas,” sent an abusive letter to Lloyd’s Evening Post, stating that,
on going to a friend’s house on the evening of February 28, he found the
family in the utmost consternation, because they were momentarily
expecting the world to be dissolved; and then he proceeds to denounce
Methodism as “the most destructive and dangerous system to
government and society that ever was established. Neither good subjects,
good servants, nor good wives could reasonably be expected to be found
amongst the Methodists. Nursed up in enthusiasm and pretended
miracles, attended with the dangerous doctrine of assuring grace, they
had learned to look upon the rest of their fellow creatures as a set of
wretches reserved for vengeance hereafter. There was scarce a street in
the metropolis, where the common people lived, but what was infected,
more or less, with this heretical system; some boasting their sins were
forgiven; some in despair; many raving mad; and others neglecting their
necessary occupations for the sake of it, and living in beggary and
misery.”[483]
Wesley replied to this as follows.
“March 18, 1763.
“S ,—A pert, empty, self sufficient man, who calls himself
‘Philodemas,’ made use of your paper, a few days ago, to
throw abundance of dirt at the people called Methodists. He
takes occasion from the idle prophecy of Mr. Bell, with whom
the Methodists have nothing to do, as he is not, nor has been
for some time, a member of their society. Had he advanced
anything new, or any particular charge, it would have
deserved a particular answer. But, as his letter contains
nothing but dull, stale, general slanders, which have been
confuted ten times over, it would be abusing the patience of
your readers to say any more concerning it.
“I am, sir, your humble servant,
“J W .”[484]

After all, this deplorable outburst of fanaticism, in the London society,

was not without good results. It was now, in 1763, that Wesley wrote his
important sermon on “Sin in Believers,” in which he says: “I cannot, by
any means, receive this assertion, that there is no sin in a believer from
the moment he is justified; first, because it is contrary to the whole
tenour of Scripture; secondly, because it is contrary to the experience of
the children of God; thirdly, because it is absolutely new, never heard of
in the world till yesterday, when those under the direction of the late
Count Zinzendorf preached it; and lastly, because it is naturally attended
with the most fatal consequences; not only grieving those whom God
hath not grieved, but perhaps dragging them into everlasting perdition.”
It was now also, that Wesley published his “Cautions and Directions
given to the greatest Professors in the Methodist societies;” which, in
brief, were as follows: 1. Watch and pray continually against pride. 2.
Beware of enthusiasm. 3. Beware of antinomianism. 4. Beware of sins of
omission. 5. Beware of desiring anything but God. 6. Beware of schism.
7. Be exemplary in all things. The reader, who wishes to have a full view
of the extravagances of those who professed sanctification in 1762, will
do well to read Wesley’s “Cautions and Directions,” at length, as
elaborated by himself. An enormous evil had sprung up, and it was one
of the greatest facts of his eventful life, that Wesley was able to check the
bad and to preserve the good.
On April 28, 1763, Maxfield fully and finally separated himself from
Wesley, the latter taking as his text on the occasion, “If I am bereaved of
my children, I am bereaved.” In 1767, Maxfield, in his vindication of
himself, gave his views of sanctification,—views misty, mystical, and
muddy, and, to say the least, widely different from those of Wesley.
He became Wesley’s enemy. “He spake,” says Wesley, “all manner of
evil of me, his father, his friend, his greatest earthly benefactor. To Mr. M
——n he said, ‘Mr. Wesley believed and countenanced all which Mr.
Bell said; and the reason of our parting was this: he said to me one day,
—Tommy, I will tell the people you are the greatest gospel preacher in
England; and you shall tell them I am the greatest! For refusing to do
this, Mr. Wesley put me away!’”
That Maxfield should utter such calumnies is almost incredible; and
yet, it is certain that, in his “Vindication,” he writes of his old friend in
terms not the most respectful. He talks of Wesley’s “penny history of
Methodism”; whines about Wesley injuring his character, and thereby his
usefulness; complains of Wesley keeping scores, if not hundreds, of his
spiritual children from him; declares that, while he disapproved of Bell’s
proceedings, Wesley encouraged them; taunts him with having been
guilty of the same enthusiasm as Bell by his gloomy prophecies
concerning Dr. Halley’s comet; asserts, that the reasons Bell assigned for
leaving Wesley were his “double dealings and unfaithful proceedings”;
and says that, in a society meeting at the Foundery, Wesley boastfully
glorified himself, with the following epitaph of Philip of Macedon:—

“Here Philip lies, on the Dalmatian shore,

Who did what mortal never did before.
Yet, if there’s one who boasts he more hath done,
To me he owes it, for he was my son.”

Maxfield lived twenty years after this separation. He took with him
about two hundred of Wesley’s London society, and preached to a large
congregation in a chapel in Ropemaker’s Alley, Little Moorfields.
Towards the close of life he again became friendly with the Methodists;
and Wesley visited him in his last illness, and also preached in his
chapel.[485] In 1766, Maxfield published a hymn-book of more than four
hundred pages, many of his hymns being selections from those published
by his old friends, the Wesleys. In the preface, he still complains of
persecution, in being represented as “heading a party of wild
enthusiasts”; but says, “such a groundless charge deserves no answer,”
and appeals to his hymn-book as a proof.
George Bell, for many years, was Maxfield’s survivor, but made no
pretension to religion. “He recovered his senses,” says Southey, “to make
a deplorable use of them; passing from one extreme to another, the
ignorant enthusiast became an ignorant infidel; turned fanatic in politics,
as he had done in religion; and, having gone through all the degrees of
disaffection and disloyalty, died, at a great age, a radical reformer.”
We only add that, in 1762, Charles Wesley, who had been laid aside by
ill health from preaching, published, in two volumes, his “Short Hymns
on Select Passages of the Holy Scriptures,” in the preface to which he
says: “Several of the hymns are intended to prove, and several to guard,
the doctrine of Christian perfection. I durst not publish one without the
other. In the latter sort I use some severity; not against particular persons,
but against enthusiasts and antinomians, who, by not living up to their
profession, give abundant occasion to them that seek it, and cause the
truth to be evil spoken of.”
Mr. Jackson writes:
“Until this time, it had been understood, that Mr. Charles
Wesley agreed with his brother on this as well as every other
doctrine of Christian verity; although he had repeatedly used
unguarded expressions in his hymns, which could not be
justified. But now his views on this subject appear to have
undergone a change, in consequence of the extravagance and
pride of which he was a distressed witness. He did not, from
this time, contend, as do many, for the necessary continuance
of indwelling sin till death; but he spoke of Christian
perfection as a much higher attainment than either he or his
brother had previously regarded it. In his estimation, it is not
to be obtained by a present act of faith in the mercy, truth, and
power of God; but is rather the result of severe discipline,
comprehending affliction, temptation, long continued labour,
and the persevering exercise of faith in seasons of spiritual
darkness, when the heart is wrung with bitter anguish. By this
painful and lingering process, he believed that the death of
‘the old man’ is effected, and a maturity is given to all the
graces of the Christian character. Hence, he condemned ‘the
witnesses,’ as he called them; that is, the persons who
testified of the time and manner in which they were delivered
from the root of sin, and made perfect in love, regarding them
as self deceived. In some of his ‘Short Hymns,’ he has given
considerable importance to these peculiarities of opinion.
“This change in Mr. Charles Wesley’s manner of speaking
on the subject of Christian perfection, as might be expected,
gave considerable uneasiness to his brother, who felt it to be
very undesirable that they should even seem to contradict
each other in their ministry and writings. In a letter, therefore,
to Miss Furley, he says, ‘Take care you are not hurt by
anything in the “Short Hymns,” contrary to the doctrines you
have long received.’ And, on the same subject, he also says,
in a letter to Charles,—‘That perfection which I believe, I can
boldly preach; because I think I see five hundred witnesses of
it. Of that perfection which you preach, you think you do not
see any witness at all. Why, then, you must have far more
courage than me, or you could not persist in preaching it. I
wonder you do not, in this article, fall in plumb with Mr.
Whitefield. For do not you, as well as he, ask, “Where are the
perfect ones?” I verily believe there are none upon earth; none
dwelling in the body. I cordially assent to his opinion, that
there is no such perfection here as you describe; at least, I
never met with an instance of it; and I doubt I never shall.
Therefore I still think, to set perfection so high is effectually
to renounce it.’
“At a subsequent period, he again addressed Charles on the
same subject. ‘Some thoughts,’ says he, ‘occurred to my mind
this morning, which, I believe, it may be useful to set down;
the rather, because it may be a means of our understanding
each other clearly; that we may agree as far as ever we can,
and then let all the world know it.
“‘I was thinking on Christian perfection, with regard to the
thing, the manner, and the time.
“‘1. By perfection I mean the humble, gentle, patient love
of God and man, ruling all the tempers, words, and actions;
the whole heart, and the whole life.
“‘I do not include a possibility of falling from it, either in
part or in whole. Therefore, I retract several expressions in
our hymns, which partly express, partly imply, such an
impossibility. And I do not contend for the term sinless,
though I do not object against it. Do we agree or differ here?
If we differ, wherein?
“‘2. As to the manner, I believe this perfection is always
wrought in the soul by faith, by a simple act of faith;
consequently, in an instant. But I believe a gradual work, both
preceding and following that instant. Do we agree or differ
here?
“‘3. As to the time, I believe this instant generally is the
instant of death, the moment before the soul leaves the body.
But I believe it may be ten, twenty, or forty years before
death. Do we agree or differ here?
“‘I believe it is usually many years after justification; but
that it may be within five years, or five months after it. I know
no conclusive argument to the contrary. Do you?
“‘If it must be many years after justification, I would be
glad to know how many. Pretium quotus arrogat annus? And
how many days, or months, or even years, can you allow to be