n
and of Christendom. Considered objectively, and from the outside,
the story is something such as has already been loosely outlined;
the emergence in this immemorial and mysterious land of what
was undoubtedly, when thus considered, one tribe among many
tribes worshipping one god among many gods, but it is quite
as much an evident external fact that the god has become God.
Still stated objectively, the story is that the tribe having this
religion produced a new prophet, claiming to be more than a prophet.
The old religion killed the new prophet; but the new prophet killed
the old religion. He died to destroy it, and it died in destroying him.
Now it may be reaffirmed equally realistically that there was nothing
normal about the case or its consequences. The things that took part
in that tragedy have never been the same since, and have never been
like anything else in the world. The Church is not like other religions;
its very crimes were unique. The Jews are not like other races;
they remain as unique to everybody else as they are to themselves.
The Roman Empire did not pass like other empires; it did not perish
like Babylon and Assyria. It went through a most extraordinary
remorse amounting to madness and resuscitation into sanity,
which is equally strange in history whether it seems as ghastly
as a galvanised corpse or as glorious as a god risen from the dead.
The very land and city are not like other lands and cities.
The concentration and conflict in Jerusalem to-day, whether we
regard them as a reconquest by Christendom or a conspiracy of Jews
or a part of the lingering quarrel with Moslems, are alike the effect
of forces gathered and loosened in that one mysterious moment
in the history of the city. They equally proclaim the paradox
of its insignificance and its importance.

But above all the prophet was not and is not like other prophets;
and the proof of it is to be found not primarily among
those who believe in him, but among those who do not.
He is not dead, even where he is denied. What is the use of a modern
man saying that Christ is only a thing like Atys or Mithras,
when the next moment he is reproaching Christianity for not
following Christ? He does not suddenly lose his temper and talk
about our most unmithraic conduct, as he does (very justly as a rule)
about our most unchristian conduct. We do not find a group of ardent
young agnostics, in the middle of a great war, tried as traitors
for