to say that her system can never command the intellectual respect of psychologists.
Now let us consider the nature of Mrs. Eddy's “immortal Mind” and analyze its knowledge. We shall find that here the author of Christian Science with scarcely any side-stepping follows the curious tracks of the Neoplatonists. Her conception of “immortal Mind” is the same as their conception of the nous or infinite intellect and her analysis of the knowledge of “immortal Mind” corresponds to their analysis of the knowledge of their infinite intellect.
We need not be troubled to distinguish between the activity of the one infinite mind and that of individual minds inasmuch as individual minds so-called, as we have explained, are rather activities of the one infinite mind. Our knowledge, when it is real knowledge or understanding, is in fact the knowledge of the divine mind. This is a parallel belonging to the pantheistic nature of the systems that need not be traced out again. The student, however, should notice that it is a parallel of fundamental value.
Mrs. Eddy teaches that “immortal Mind” is ever active, never passive. This subject in its relation to the nature of God, since Mrs. Eddy identifies God and mind, was treated in the chapter on Theology. But it is necessary to introduce it here also to show its psychological import. It is the source of the time-honored theory that mind is ever conscious and is in fact this theory. It is as old as Neoplatonism and, it seems, originated in it.
