The Methodist Quarterly Review 1841

ART. VII -1. Scripture Doctrine of Christian Perfection, with other kindred Subjects, illustrated and confirmed in a Series of Discourses, designed to throw light on the Way of Holiness. By Rev. ASA MAHAN, President of the Oberlin Collegiate Institute. Fourth edition. Pp.193. Boston: published by D. S. King. 1840.

2. Christian Perfection. By Enoch Pond. D. D., Bangor Theological Seminary. American Biblical Repository, second series. Vol.1, pp. 444B.

3. Review of Mahan on Christian Perfection. By Rev. NATHANIEL S. FOLSOM. Providence, R. I. American Biblical Repository, second series. Vol. 11, pp. 143-1 66.

4. Strictures on Mr. Folsom's Review of Mahan on Christian Perfection. By Rev. ASA MAHAN, President, &C American Biblical Repository. Vol. IV, pp. 408-428.

5. Examination of the Doctrine of Perfection, as held by Rev. ASA MAHAN, President of the Oberlin Collegiate Institute, Rev. CHARLES FITCH, and others agreeing with them. By LEONARD WOODS, D. D., Professor of Theology in the Theological Seminary, Andover, Mass. American Biblical Repository. Vol. V, pp. 166-189.

The discussion of the subject of Christian perfection, now pending in the Presbyterian and Congregational Churches, is a matter of no small interest to the church of Christ in general. And at present, we rejoice to say, it seems to be assuming a tone which augurs a favorable result. The best talents are called into requisition, and a becoming gravity and brotherly feeling characterize the parties engaged in the investigation.

We are not at all disposed to intermeddle with questions of difference among other denominations, so far as these questions are merely local or only interesting to them. But the question is one of general interest, and such is the relation which is held to it by all the followers of Wesley, that it cannot be supposed they will look on with indifference. Especially as the views of Wesley and the Methodists frequently come into question; and, as we think, are sometimes but badly represented, it ought not to be taken amiss that we should interpose at this time a brief review of the controversy.

We have read Mr. Mahan's book with great interest and satisfaction. Though it is not to be maintained that he expresses himself Methodistically upon all the points of this great doctrine, we are satisfied that the thing which we mean by Christian: perfection is truly set forth in that work. The failure to express the Wesleyan theory, if in any point, is in not sufficiently distinguishing between legal and evangelical perfection. This we merely hint by the way, being by no means certain that there is any real difference between his conceptions of the subject and our own.

The point upon which we feared, when we took up his book, we should find him to have failed, is the distinct and proper recognition of divine influence as the efficient cause of the work of sanctification. But his language upon this point seems sufficiently explicit.

We should be happy, had we room, to give a complete analysis of this work, but after what we have said, we must leave those who wish further information with regard; to its character, to procure and read it for themselves.

We shall next notice Dr. Pond's article, in opposition to the divine of Christian perfection. This writer first gives us his views of the different schemes of "the pretenders to Christian perfection " secondly, he attempts to meet the arguments by which its abettors labor to support it; and, thirdly, he brings against it several objections.

"The question," Dr. P says, "is one of fact." He does not deny that the doctrine is taught in the Bible admits that we are commanded to be perfect; that the apostle prayed that his Christian brethren might be made perfect, that this state is matter of promise, and that we are bound ever to aspire to it; but then it turns out to be a "fact" that none ever are so. That no man since the fall, while living, ever attained to this state, nor will any in future to the end of time. We shall not, at present, controvert this point, nor attempt an answer of the author's arguments, bet shall merely undertake to set him right in some thing in which he has failed to represent what the "fact" really is in the case. In this controversy, as a matter of course, Mr. Wesley must come in for a share of praise on one side, and of blame on the other. But we are sorry that a writer of so much character as is Dr. P. should have been so very careless a reader of Mr. Wesley's writings, and should so represent his views upon important points connected with this question, as to leave a false and an injurious impression.

In a note Dr. P. says,-

"Mr. Wesley did not intend, perhaps, to depress the standard of duty; but he held to the repeal of 'the Adamic law," and thought it very consistent with perfection that persons should fall into great errors and faults. See his Plain Account, pp. 93, 94."

"Great errors and faults" are not Mr. Wesley's words, but words which perhaps suit Dr. P. a little better than any he could find in the author upon whom he palms such obnoxious doctrines.

Dr. P. seems entirely to have overlooked the explanatory disuse included, in the copy before us, in a parenthesis, but which origin-ally was inserted in a foot note. Having said that "Christ is the end of the Adamic, as well as of the Mosaic law," that "by his death he hath put an end to both: nor is any man living bound to observe. the Adamic more than the Mosaic law," Mr. Wesley adds this explanation: "I mean, it is not the condition either of present or future salvation." Now, had Dr. P. noticed this very important qualification, he could not consistently have stated, unqualifiedly, that Mr. Wesley "held to the repeal of the Adamic law." His simple view is nothing more nor less than this: that present and future salvation are suspended upon the condition of faith, without the works of the law. But if Dr. P. takes the converse of this proposition, and, contrary to the doctrine of the Confession of Faith of his own church, believes in salvation by the law as a covenant of works, let him come out and say so.

There is still another injurious and erroneous representation of Mr. Wesley's language in this article. After saying some things of those who profess to have attained Christian perfection, not highly imbued with charity, the writer adds in a note,-

"In illustration of what is here said I cannot forbear quoting a few sentences from Mr. Wesley's 'Plain Account' of some of his perfect followers in London."

He now quotes several paragraphs of what Mr. Wesley says of "those in London who seem to have been lately renewed' in love," but who were evidently wanting in the characteristics of perfect Christians; being deficient in "gentleness, goodness, fidelity," &c. Mid in the conclusion of his remarks Mr. Wesley says, "You have not what I call perfection. If others will call it so, they may. However, hold fast what you have, and earnestly pray for what you have rot." But how Dr. P. could quote this language of Mr. [VOL. I.-20] Wesley, as said "of some of hi: perfect followers in London," and how he could make out, even after all Mr. Wesley says of them, that these people were "far gone in error and sin," we are utterly at a loss to see. The whole is an effort upon the part of Mr. Wesley to show that these persons were not entitled to be considered as perfect Christians. He says to them plainly, "You have not what t call perfection." Can it be possible that Dr. P. failed to under-stand a few plain English sentences, written with characteristic perspicuity We would fain hope that the fault was in his power of attention, and that it did not originate in a design to make a wrong impression. Of such a design we charitably hope the doctor is incapable.

We next pass to notice Mr. Folsom's review of Mr. Mahan's book. After premising that the question is simply a question of fact, and inflicting a slight chastisement upon Mr. M. for "not fairly" stating "the question at issue," Mr. F. proceeds to spend his strength upon Mr. M.'s arguments; and then adduces "a few brief considerations, to strengthen the proof which has long been the defense of the church, in respect to the doctrine that none ever reach a state of perfect and perpetual holiness in the present life." His brief "considerations" consist in nine assumptions, which prove nothing at all. They amount to about this: the doctrine no one ever attains perfection in this life is proved by all those passages which deny the fact of the existence of perfect Christians! Where these "passages" are he leaves his readers to find out. The last paragraph of this writer is not a little remarkable. The following is a part of it :-

"There is one permanent and visible state which the Christian must reach. It is that where his life will be in general accordance with the requirements of God's word. He must be able to say with Paul, I know nothing by myself. He must live free from open, known sin, free from transgression in secret. His growth must be permanently into the stature of a perfect man is Christ."

Now, if we are not deceived, this comes very little short of the very state which this gentleman has taken so much pains to prove will never be attained. If we "must live free from open and known sin,,' and "from transgression in secret" what place is left for sin of any kind Is not all "sin" either "open" or "secret"

President Mahan's reply to Mr. Folsom is written with ability and in good temper. The simple question at issue he makes to be,

"Whether we may now, during the progress of the present life, attain to entire perfection in holiness, and whether it is proper for us to indulge the anticipation of making such attainments."

The fact, that some are represented in the Scriptures as having attained this state, he only adduced, because of its bearing upon this question. The question of fact Mr. M. fairly rests upon Scripture ground, but we have not space for a specimen.

The next who enters the list against President Mahan is Dr. Woods, of Andover. This gentleman writes in good temper, and manifests great respect for the character and feelings of the man he feels constrained to oppose. After a brief introduction, he makes the following statement:--

"When a man undertakes to sustain and propagate a novel system-a system different from what has commonly been entertained by the best of men-it is inadmissible for him to set forth, as a part of his system, any opinions which are held by those from whom he professes to differ."

To this no valid objection can be made, provided he confine his restriction to the question in debate. But there is a counterpart to this proposition upon which it will be Mr. Mahan's privilege, if he should see proper, to insist; and that is, that in opposing a novel doctrine, nothing should be assumed as common ground which does not legitimately constitute a part of the ordinary creed. This latter restriction is as legitimate and as important a rule of discussion as the former, and one by which Dr. Woods is most sacredly bound to be governed. Whether he has adhered to it we shall presently see; but it is certain that he this Mr. M. has passed over his boundary.

The "views" which the doctor charges Mr. M. with maintaining as "different" from those commonly entertained by his brethren, and which he maintains are not "novel," but equally "held by those from whom he professes to differ," may be expressed in thc simple proposition, that Christian perfection, or salvation from all sin, is ATTAINABLE now, during the present life. This, all Mr. Mahan's opponents, so far, have declared to be common ground and, consequently, not the question at issue. That, Dr. Woods takes this ground will be seen in the following passage, which constitutes but a small portion of what he says to the same purpose:--

"And he lays it down as a truth, which distinguishes his system from the one generally held, that complete holiness is, in the highest and most common acceptation of the term, attainable. And in the last number of the Repository (p. 409) he states it as a point peculiar to him and his party, 'that, we may render to God the perfect obedience which he requires.' But we hold to this as much as he does, and, as I suppose, on the same conditions; that is, we may render perfect obedience, if we apply ourselves to the work as we ought, and fully avail ourselves of the gracious provisions of the gospel. He surely would not say that we may render perfect obedience in any other way.

"I must therefore protest here, as I did in the former case, against Mr. Mahan's claiming that, as belonging peculiarly and exclusively to him, and to those who agree with him, which belongs equally to others. We hold as decidedly as he does, that, in the common acceptation of the term, complete holiness is attainable in the present life. When we assert that a thing is attainable, or may be attained, our meaning is, that a proper use of means will secure it; that we shall obtain it, if we do what we ought; and that, if we fail of obtaining it, truth will require us to say we might have obtained it, and that our failure was owing altogether to our own fault."

In another place Dr. W. asserts, that "devout Christians and orthodox divines have in all ages maintained this precious doctrine," and that he "might fill volumes with quotations from evangelical writers, from Augustine down to the present day, in which this grand sentiment is strongly asserted and clearly illustrated." Among these "orthodox divines" he names Calvin, Flavel, Owen, Bunyan, Watts, Doddridge, President Davis, Good, M'Lauren, and John Newton.

We know we cannot mistake Dr. W.'s meaning, for he has so varied and repeated his statements, and has so seriously argued from, them, through the whole of his article, that there is no room left for doubt. This learned Calvinistic divine then, not only avows his belief in the doctrine of the attainableness of Christian perfection in the present life, but declares this to have been the common doctrine of "orthodox divines,-from Augustine down to the present day." What class of divines the doctor means by "orthodox divines," is obvious from the names he gives.

Now, we hope Dr. W. will not deem it impertinent in us to inquire, whether this representation is historically correct. The fact is, that the very gist of the controversy between the Methodists and Calvinists upon the subject of Christian perfection has ever been its attainableness, and this Dr. W. says, "orthodox divines" have always "maintained." Had the good doctor carefully read Mr. Fletcher's Last Check to Antinomianism, he could hardly have fallen into the errors in point of fact which he has evidently committed. Messrs. Hill, Toplady, Martin, and others, who fiercely assailed the doctrine of perfection, as held by Messrs. Wesley and Fletcher, did explicitly deny the attainableness of Christian perfection in the present life, and steadily assert the necessary continuance of indwelling sin until the hour of death. This fact we might prove by numerous quotations, had we room. Now will the doctor impugn the orthodoxy of these "divines," and allow that the right of the quarrel was on the side of Messrs. Wesley and Fletcher This he certainly must do, or stand convicted of palpable error in point of historical fact.

There are others who, it may be presumed, Dr. W. will feel bound to acknowledge as orthodox divines," who have explicitly taken the same ground. The learned and truly "orthodox" Witseus says,--

"There can be no doubt, but whoever carefully walks in this way, shall make very great progress in sanctification, and daily arrive more and more at a nearer conformity to the pattern set before him. However, we are not to imagine, that ever any one in this rife can attain to that perfection which the law of God requires, that, living without all sin, he should wholly employ himself in the service of God, with that purity, that intenseness of all his powers, that the divine holiness itself could find nothing in him but what was agreeable to it."-Economy of the Covenants, vol. ii, pp. 55, 56.

Dr. John Dick says,--

"The possibility of perfection in the present state, could be conceived only by men who were ignorant of Scripture and of themselves. They must first have lowered the standard of holiness. They must have narrowed and abated the demands of the divine law, to meet their fancied attainments."-Lectures on Theology, vol. ii, p.242.

Rev. Charles Buck says,--

"There is also a perfection of degrees, by which a person performs

all the commands of God, with the full exertion of all his powers, without the least defect. This is what the law of God requires, but what the saints cannot attain to in this life ."-Theologial Dictionary, article Perfection.

Here are three "orthodox divines" who explicitly deny the attainableness of Christian perfection in the present life, and one of them charges those who hold "the possibility of perfection in the present state," with having "lowered the standard of holiness" and. "narrowed and abated the demands of the divine law." Now as Dr. Woods, Dr. Pond, Mr. Folsom, and all others who like them distinctly admit "the possibility of perfection in the present state," and blame Mr. Mahan for announcing this as a new doctrine, one not received by the churches with which he is in connection; they must come in for a share of this condemnation, and must prepare to defend themselves against the very serious charge of lowering the standard of holiness.

Our last authority, we know, has Dr. Woods' highest respect and confidence: it is the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church. The following is the 149th question and answer of the "Larger Catechism:"—

"Is any man able perfectly to keep the commandments of God —No man is able, either of himself, or by any grace received in this life, perfectly to keep the commandments of God; but doth daily break them in thought, word, and deed."-Confession of Faith and Catechisms of the Presbyterian Church of the United States, p.268.

This article we have ever supposed sets forth the doctrine of the Presbyterian Church, and though Drs. Pond and Woods, and "devout Christians and orthodox divines," and "evangelical ministers generally," of the same communion, have taken up a different view of the subject, we have not been advised that the General Assembly has ever rescinded this article or changed its phraseology. Can Dr. Woods be right then in his representation of the common ground upon this point

As to the writers whose names Dr. W. gives in support of his position, that the attainableness of perfection is an old and common doctrine among "orthodox divines," and "evangelical ministers," we have not had time sufficiently to examine their voluminous writings to become entirely satisfied whether he has fairly represented them. One of them, the learned and pious Dr. Doddridge, says,--

"On the whole, none can pretend to say that it is absolutely impossible for us to do our best, or that God now requires us to do better than we possibly can in present circumstances; nor can we certainly say that no one has ever exerted the utmost of the capacities God has given him in any particular act of duty."-Miscellaneous Work:, p.459.

But in this instance Dr. Doddridge goes a little too far for Dr. Woods, for he not only admits the possibility of doing all that God requires, but denies that we can be sure that no one has actually done this. This is a little more than Dr. Woods wants, to make out his case.

We will now leave the question of the attainableness of perfection, and admitting that Mr. Mahan's opponents have always held as firmly to this doctrine as he does; and, if you please, that this has always been the doctrine of those "divines" whom Dr. Woods recognizes as "orthodox;" we will now inquire what is the true issue between Mr. Mahan and his opponents, according to them. They say the question is simply one of fact :-That Mr. M. affirms and they deny the fact that any have ever attained to a state of Christian perfection, or that any ever will attain to this state. Now, though this indeed seems to us a mere evasion of the real question at issue; though it never was the main question between the asserters and deniers of the doctrine of Christian perfection; yet we will pass to see how much is gained by thus changing the ground of the discussion.

Drs. Pond and Woods admit that we are commanded to be perfect, encouraged to seek for perfection, authorized to pray for it, and that it is distinctly promised in the Bible, and yet it is a revealed fact, settled and fixed by the pen of inspiration, that none ever did or ever will attain to this state during the present life. Now here is an anomaly. God requires us to seek what he, at the same time, tells us we never will obtain! Can these learned divines show us any other instance in the word of God where we are required to seek what no one ever attained or ever will attain in this life We doubt. And, moreover, we doubt whether this view of the subject helps the matter at all. Who will ever set himself seriously to seek what he knows he never will find That there is very little difference, in this case, between will not and cannot, even in the estimation of the various classes of the opposers of Christian perfection, is perfectly demonstrable.

Dick, as is seen above, identifies holding the doctrine of "the possibility of perfection" with the "fancied attainments" of those who hold this doctrine. Witsius, and the assembly of divines in the Larger Catechism, quote precisely the same passages to prove the impossibility of perfection that Mr. Mahan's opponents do to prove the non-existence of the fact. And it is here very worthy of remark, that of all the passages quoted by these high authorities, not one says any thing about the unattainableness of perfection, but they simply assert facts. Now supposing, what by the by we do not admit, that these passages mean what Calvinistic interpreters contend for in their philological exegesis, then they simply assert the fact that there is no man without sin. Well, from this fact, asserted by the sacred writers, as they suppose, the learned reformer above referred to, Dr. Dick, Mr. Buck, and the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, conclude that perfection is not attainable, And though Dr. Woods and others on the contrary assert the attainableness of a state of perfection, what practical influence will this have upon themselves or others, so long as they deny the fact that any will ever attain to this state Will not the latter be likely to practice just as the former reason

Witsius, with singular consistency, carries out the practical bearings of his doctrine. He says,--

"Seeing God has expressly declared that he does not give his people absolute perfection in this life, it is the duty of all to acquiesce in this disposition of the divine will, nor are they allowed to beg of God to grant them that perfection here, which they know he has not appointed for this, but for the other life."-Economy of the Covenants, vol. ii, p. 61.

Now this is right. No man should feel himself' authorized to ask of God now what he knows is in the divine economy "not appointed for this, but for the other life." And can Dr. Woods, his present views, fervently and believingly pray to God to make him perfect now Believing him to be constituted just like other men, notwithstanding all he has said upon the subject, we still have some doubts as to this. How a man, in the exercise of a sound mind, can pray, with the expectation of being heard and answered, for what he believes never was and never will be, is something quite beyond our comprehension.

But is there any marked difference between the preaching, praying, and the actual efforts of those divines, who, with the Catechism, assert that "no man is able, either of himself, or by any grace received in this life, perfectly to keep the commandments of God," and those who, with Dr. Woods, simply deny the fact that any ever have perfectly kept the commandments of God or ever will do so If there be any such difference, it is yet for us to learn. And should Drs. Woods and Pond begin to preach the immediate attainableness of Christian perfection, assuring their hearers that God requires and promises complete and perfect holiness Now, and that they are permitted, and even bound to seek for it as at present within their reach, how long would it be ere they would be suspected of strong affinity with the views of the Oberlin divines

We shall be happy to learn that these wise and good men are urging all their brethren onto the high mark of entire sanctification, and that their efforts are producing their appropriate effect.

There is, indeed, one light in which the concession of the attainableness of a state of entire holiness is truly important. It will naturally enough be concluded, that what is attainable may be attained-yea, has been, and will again be attained. And so the paralyzing influence of the doctrine of the necessary continuance of indwelling sin will be destroyed. Indeed, now that the opposers of the doctrine of Christian perfection are admitting its attainableness, they will find it rather difficult long to hang upon the simple denial of the fact.

Mr. Mahan's opponents say, "the question between us is simply one of fact." Though this is not conceded by Mr. M. to be "the question" of difference, and, as we have before said, has never been considered the main question between those who assert and those who deny the doctrine of Christian perfection, yet in consequence of its hearing upon that question, it has generally been mooted in the controversy. And now after conceding that the doctrine of entire sanctification is taught in the Bible, and that the state is attainable in the present life, how can any prove that there are no instances of this state among men How can they know that there is no existing fact corresponding with and practically carrying out the doctrine If they have this knowledge, it must be the result of a universal knowledge of mankind-they must "know all men, and know what is in man,"-or it must be the result of a perfect know-ledge of the nature of things-they must know a priori that this perfection is not predicable of man in his present state-that the thing is impossible; or their knowledge must rest upon a specific revelation of the fact that none ever was or ever will be thus perfect. No claim, it is presumed, will be set up to either species of evidence above named, except the last. The question, then, to be settled is, whether God has revealed in his word the fact that no man ever did or ever will attain to the state in question.

But even if we should find this fact clearly revealed, we are not quite clear of embarrassment. We have the anomaly to account for, of a principle or doctrine without a corresponding fact. We think it will be found upon the most careful examination, that all the doctrines of the Bible, relating to the improvement of man's moral character, have corresponding facts illustrative of their nature and practical tendency. The doctrine of repentance is exemplified in the life and conduct of the true penitent; the doctrine of faith, in the believer; that of justification in the justified; regeneration in the regenerated, &c. But, according to the views we oppose, here is the doctrine of perfect holiness without any perfectly holy individuals to exemplify the doctrine. We do indeed read in the Bible of saints, or holy ones, persons sanctified, perfect, &c., but as the "fact" of the existence of an individual entirely holy must not be admitted, the aids of criticism and logic are called in to deprive these terms or their legitimate meaning.

A specimen of the Scripture argument upon this point may not be inappropriate in this place.

I. To say nothing of Enoch, Elijah, Daniel, and others who are represented, as far as we recollect, as without offense, we premise that men of this class are recognized by the sacred writers as living upon earth. The psalmist says, "Blessed are the undefiled in the way, (HEBREW!!!! perfect of the way,) who walk in the law of the Lord," Psa. cxii, 1. Again he says, "He that walketh in a perfect way, he shall serve me," Psa. ci, 6. And Solomon says, "The upright shall dwell in the land, and the perfect shall remain in it," Prov. ii, 21. Our Saviour says, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God," Matt. V, 8. Professor Robinson interprets oi kaqaroi th kardia, pure in heart; "sincere, upright, void of evil." (See Lexicon.) And Parkhurst, "clean, pure, in a spiritual sense, from the pollution and guilt of sin." (See Lexicon.) After giving these few examples under this head, we must pass

2. To such passages as speak of a state of sanctification as preparatory to duties which are appropriate to the present state of being. The psalmist prays, "Create in me a clean heart, 0 God, and renew a right spirit within me," Psa. li, 10; and adds in the 13th verse, "Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee." From this it seems evident that the psalmist must have thought of living to do good in the world, after he should have "a clean heart and a right spirit."

And the prophet Ezekiel says in God's name, "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean," &c.; "And cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them," Ezek. xxxvi, 25-27.

St. Peter represents our election to be "through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience," 1 Pet. i, 2, "eiV upakohn;; i. e., in order that they should obey the gospel."-Dr. Bloomfield. (See Greek Testament, with. English notes, in loc.) In all these cases, and many others which might be quoted, sanctification is represented as a qualification for the great duties which are to be done in the present world, and, consequently, cannot be understood as only to be attained at death.

3. Particular instances of this state of holiness mentioned in the Scriptures. Some of these are declared by the sacred writers to have been blameless, perfect, upright, &c. Among these ire Zechariah and Elizabeth; others profess to have attained to the state indicated by these qualifying terms. Among these we would mention the great apostle of the Gentiles. But we cannot here go into the evidence.

4. Passages which imply gross absurdity, upon the supposition that none are sanctified until death. St. Paul prays that his brethren of the church of Thessalonica may be sanctified wholly. Now does he pray that they may speedily be removed from the world Our blessed Saviour prayed that his disciples might be sanctified: "Sanctify them through thy truth," John xvii, 17. Did he pray that they might be removed hence This could not be, for he had just said, verse 15, "I pray not that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil."

The entire argument of Dr. Woods is not a very specious sophism of the class called Ignoratio Elenchi, a misapprehension of the question. And whether, from the light he has shed upon the subject,. Mr. M. and his friends will "feel themselves bound in truth to abstain from any further attempt to uphold their scheme by the arguments which" he has "noticed," remains to be seen. They may be sorry indeed that Dr. W. should be so "greatly disappointed" as to the success of his argument, but we fondly hope the glory of God, and the proper elevation of the church, are with them objects of paramount importance.

February 10, 1841.

Proofreading, HTML conversion, and other modifications by Brandon Boyd.

Copyright 2000 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology. Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes or mirrored on other web sites, provided this notice is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact the webmaster for permission or to report errors.