in the soul will be privation;”[1] “The evil of the soul must be considered as the absence of good;”[1] “If evil anywhere subsists, it must be found among non-entities, must be itself a certain species of non-entity.”[2] Proclus keeps step with Plotinus and considers that there are not “in intellect paradigms of evils.”[3] Proclus reasons in the same way as Mrs. Eddy does, saying: “Because good is the cause of all things, it is requisite that evil should have no subsistence among beings.”[4] Compare this sentence carefully with the next to the last one given just above from Mrs. Eddy.
Spinoza repeating the thought of the Neoplatonists, as we may anticipate, says: “I cannot admit that sin and evil have any positive existence;”[5] “Sin, which indicates nothing save imperfection, cannot consist in anything that expresses reality.”[5]
In the following quotation one may see the same kind of reasoning that there is in the first sentence above from Mrs. Eddy. Compare them carefully. By essence Spinoza means simply being, positive existence or reality. He cannot mean anything else. He says: “I maintain in the first place, that God is absolutely and really the cause of all things which have essence, whatsoever they may be. If you can demonstrate that evil, error, crime, etc., have any positive existence, which ex-
