For the truth is there all the time although at the moment we may not have grasped it and the Christian religion, if it be the true religion, as we believe, was framed, so to speak, to meet the needs of a cosmos organised in this particular way and in no other. Unless, therefore, the Christian religion be false, it is impossible that the results of research, supposing them to be accurate and reliable,--a matter which can only be ensured by the exercise of scientific reason,--should in any way conflict with religious truth. In case any one should feel that I ought to specify more precisely than I have done, what I mean by the Christian religion, I would refer them to the Nicene creed. Or if it is a matter of the interpretation of this in terms of conduct, I should cite "My duty towards God" and "My duty towards my neighbour" in the Church Catechism. Or in secular writings I would mention that view of Christianity which is defended by Mr. G.K. Chesterton in his book "Orthodoxy." With these I am prepared to stand four-square, although it is conceivable that I might find myself at variance with some authorities on the precise interpretation to be given to certain clauses, as for instance "the resurrection of the dead" in the first mentioned. But controversies about interpretation have been rife among Christian theorists from the earliest times and differences of opinion on minor points do not constitute lack of adherence in fundamentals. Hitherto in this discussion I have been concerned only with negatives. That is to say I have been trying to show that there is nothing in the attempt which has led me to adopt the four-dimensional hypothesis which is in any way contrary to the essential teachings of Christianity. There is however a positive side to the question. I believe that so far from being antagonistic to Christian teaching, the general acceptance of the hypothesis would be of real value, in that it would put into the hands of the Church a very powerful weapon for the repelling of a certain form of attack, that of the scientific materialist to wit. I do not mean to claim this as a merit of the four-dimensional hypothesis as such, for it would equally accrue to any other hypothesis which might prove to be true. In the second chapter I gave my reasons for believing that the establishing of some such hypothesis would be calculated to remove the principle cause of dissension between religious and materialistically scientific thinkers. I there pointed out that the chief strength of the materialist lay in the reluctance or inability of the Church to give an intelligible explanation of the terms used in speaking of certain religious and spiritual matters. I have explained that I see nothing in anyway repugnant to religion in the attempt to formulate an hypothesis to explain the mechanism of survival, etc.