tions from the Neoplatonists, commenting and explaining the language of each. At times my discussion may be quite lengthy. For both systems are abstruse and since the Neoplatonists wrote so long ago and in the Greek tongue and gave to the world so profound a system, considerable explanation of their language is necessary. My method is not to berate, not to excite passion or humor, but to prove. It is detective work in the realm of ideas.
I beg the reader to show patience and to read carefully the argument in the order in which it is given. The essay is brief and the subject important. Other methods of dealing with Christian Science have been used. This is a new treatment, and it should be an effective one.
Let it be repeated that the force of the treatment herein pursued depends on the fact that both Neoplatonism and Christian Science are systems; that is, each is a body of ideas that are logically related and essentially interdependent. If this were not the case it would be useless to attempt to show the source of Mrs. Eddy's ideas. If Christian Science were not a system, similarities only could be affirmed; dependence could not.
But if a metaphysical system is not original, its source may be traced out and demonstrated by the best of proof. If only a few unrelated ideas are identical this may be accidental. But if the primary principles are the same and if the working out of these principles in detail is the same; so that both systems have an array of identical ideas
