There is among Scientists a difference of understanding on some points which I should like to hear something about in the Journal, e. g.: When a person is cured of an old belief, is it Scientific to say that he is healed—or would it be more Scientific to say that persons are never healed? If the latter be correct, why does the Journal make statements about "healing"? Again: Some of our people say that one who really desires to study Christian Science should be allowed to enter a primary class, even if not well in belief. In June Journal for '87 the Teacher replies to an inquirer who asks why she stipulates that students who study with herself shall be in good health. I should like to see something about this.—
This correspondent has himself, if he will note it, answered the first of his questions. His query is made in the seemings of belief about these seemings. The Journal, also, is printed in the seemings. When the sense of these seemings shall have been destroyed, cases, questions, and their foundation of seeming facts will all vanish together. No way of dealing with seemings in terms of absolute Science has yet been found.
To the second query: The Teacher, in her reply, gave reasons governing her own individual action in this matter of not receiving persons in belief of disease. These reasons were peculiar to her own situation as a teacher; how far they are appliable for guidance of others, is for each individual to determine in each case as it presents itself. Rules are rarely laid down in Science.
