In conclusion, our answer to the indictment against Christianity is that institutional religion does not represent the Gospel of Christ, but the opinions of a mass of nominal Christians.  It cannot be expected to do much more than look after its own interests and reflect the moral ideas of its supporters.  The real Gospel, if it were accepted, would pull up by the roots not only militarism but its analogue in civil life, the desire to exploit other people for private gain.  But it is not accepted.  We have seen that the Founder of Christianity had no illusions as to the reception which His message of redemption would meet with.  The ‘Prince of this World’ is not Christ, but the Devil.  Nevertheless, He did speak of the ‘whole lump’ being gradually leavened, and we shall not exceed the limits of a reasonable and justifiable optimism if we hope that the accumulated experience of humanity, and perhaps a real though very slow modification for the better of human nature itself, may at last eliminate the wickedest and most insane of our maleficent institutions.  The human race has probably hundreds of thousands of years to live, whereas our so-called civilisation cannot be traced back for more than a few thousand years.  The time when ’nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more,’ will probably come at last, though no one can predict what the conditions will be which will make such a change possible.

The signs are not very favourable at present for internationalism.  The great nations, bankrupt and honey-combed with social unrest, will be obliged after the war to organise themselves as units, with governments strong enough to put down revolutions, and directed by men of the highest mercantile ability, whose main function will be to increase productiveness and stop waste.  We may even see Germany mobilised as one gigantic trust for capturing markets and regulating prices.  A combination so formidable would compel other nations, and our own certainly among the number, to adopt a similar organisation.  This would, of course, mean a complete victory for bureaucratic state-socialism, and the defeat of democracy and trade-union syndicalism.  Such a change, which few would just now welcome, will occur if no other form of state is able to survive; and this is what we may live to see.  But there is no finality about any experiments in government.  A period of internationalism may follow the intense nationalism which historical critics foresee for the twentieth century.  Or perhaps the international labour-organisations may be too strong for the centralising forces.  It is just possible that Labour, by a concerted movement during the violent reaction against militarism which will probably follow the war, will forbid any further military or naval preparations to be made.