h modified to a proper extent by the presence and influence of the
rest. I say this is a rare achievement. No one but Christ has ever
achieved it perfectly. It is easy to see that even the apostles,
inspired as they were, did not equally appreciate all sides of
revelation. They have their distinguishing doctrines and points of
view.

It is still easier to see that Christian churches and theologians
differ for this same reason, and to a much greater extent. No creed, no
church, no theology, that builds on the Word of God, can be wholly
wrong. Its difference from others must lie in its partial appreciation
of the truth, in its inability to take in all truths in their relative
proportion. And so in literature and science and philosophy some men
are impressed with material evidences, others with moral. Some men are
poets, others are logicians; some critical, others dogmatic. The hope
of the future for the Church and for humanity is in the slow
approximation and combination of these partial views, until at last,
"in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, we
shall come unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the
fullness of Christ." Meanwhile, at the beginning of our Christian
history, Christ stands perfect. To see this is to appreciate his
authority. As Paul said, He is the corner stone of the spiritual temple
which the Divine Spirit is building.

I do not mean that he taught explicitly all the truth which later times
have discovered, or which after him apostles taught. But he laid the
living germs of all later religious truth, and he held them in such
perfect proportion that when the long course of history shall be
finished, when that which is in part shall have been done away, and
that which is perfect shall have come, the result will be but the
reproduction on a large scale of the already perfect stature of Christ.

And this is particularly manifested in Christ's views of life. His
peerless spirituality did not make him an ascetic. His clear vision of
the future did not lead him to despise the present. His love of God did
not destroy his love of nature or of man. His hatred of sin did not
cause him to shun the sinner. Hence, though our Lord was the model of a
religious man, he was no enthusiast, still less a fanatic. The
enthusiast is a man who sees but part of truth and magnifies it out of
its proportion; and the fanatic is one who, in addition to this, hates
what he cannot under