WHEN Mary Baker Eddy discovered Christian Science and stated as one of its teachings, "In Christian Science there is no matter" (Unity of Good, p. 41), this was greeted in general with scorn and derision. During the half century that has intervened there has been a great change in the thinking of the world. In one of the chemistry textbooks which is used in the eleventh and twelfth grades of certain public schools in the United States, and which may be considered as stating the generally accepted thought on the subject, we find this statement: "In fact there is no such thing as matter: there is only electricity, that is, electrons and protons arranged in different ways" (A First Book in Chemistry, by Robert A. Bradbury, p. 659, Revised Edition).
While this view of matter is helpful in loosening thought from a hampering and limiting concept, Christian Scientists, especially students in schools or colleges, may find themselves confronted with questions such as these: If matter is conceded to be as insubstantial as natural science states, is it any longer necessary for us to study carefully what is taught in the authorized Christian Science literature about matter? Can it be called merely an unnecessary discussion of an outgrown and unimportant belief? Can the trenchant statements in "the scientific statement of being" (Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, p. 468), "There is no life, truth, intelligence, nor substance in matter," "matter is mortal error," "matter is the unreal and temporal," "man is not material," be considered as no longer of interest or importance to an educated person? These questions are seriously presenting themselves to the young people growing up in our schools and colleges, and leaving behind the outgrown concept of matter, but who have not as yet clearly grasped the distinction between Christian Science and all other systems.
It is important not to let the shifting of terms confuse our thought in the application of Christian Science. If we should accept the modern use by many people of the word "matter," as merely a term applying to an outgrown theory, as we might use the word "phlogiston," which relates to a theory similarly abandoned, we should lose our grasp of Mrs. Eddy's careful consideration of so-called matter in her writings, and would fail to see the force and effectiveness of such statements as "the scientific statement of being."
