'_Matter_,' he says, '_I define as that mysterious something by which all this is accomplished_;' and yet here we find him, in the face of this, invoking some second mystery as well.
And for what reason?
This is the strangest thing of all.

He believes in his second Incomprehensible _because_ he believes in his first Incomprehensible.

'_If I reject one result_,' he says, '_I_ must _reject both.

I, however, reject neither_.' But why?
Because one undoubted fact is a mystery, is every mystery an undoubted fact?
Such is Dr.Tyndall's logic in this remarkable utterance: and if this logic be valid, we can at once prove to him the existence of a personal God, and a variety of other '_heathen_' doctrines also.

But, applied in this way, it is evident that the argument fails to move him; for a belief in a personal God is one of the first things that his science rejects.