THE BIBLE-SPIRITUALISM CONTROVERSY. SIR.—I read my friend Mr. Pearce’s letter in your last with great regret, and I know that some excellent Christian men who had begun to be interested in Spiritualism, have been much shocked by it. And no wonder ! Our Christian friends though some of their views may be erroneous and illogical hold their creeds, naturally enough very sacred ; and it savours to them very much of blasphemy when they see the Bible treated with no more respect, and as of little more authority, than other books. I sympathise to some extent with Mr. Pearce in his complaint that W. H. evinced in his letter a little want of charity towards those who have ventured to express sentiments at variance with his own ; but I do not think it is a sufficient answer to W. H. to attempt to prove that the biblical narratives are incredible, for that is only supporting, instead of confuting W. H.’s position—that there is a class of Spiritualists who seem only too glad of an oppor tunity of making attacks upon "Moses, Jesus, and the Bible." Would it not rather be wiser for W. H. and Mr. Pearce, and every other Spiritualist, to avoid altogether the discussion of theological tenets in Spiritualistic publications? For what has Spiritualism to do with the questions that have been raised—the Divinity of the Lord Jesus and the inspiration of the first chapter of Genesis? As a Swedenborgian I hold both most completely, even though I am a Spiritualist also. And what is more, notwithstanding Mr. Pearce’s attempt to dis prove them, I think I could show—if I regarded a Spiritual istic publication as the proper place for it—that in so believing them I violate neither reason nor common sense. I am, in fact, rationally convinced of their truth, and I do not for a moment anticipate that any spirit will ever expect me to abjure them on his authority alone ! If I ever meet with such a one I shall suspect him to be a departed Pope, and shall refuse to have anything to say to him. But I will say no more, for I write this with the simple view of inducing you to discourage theological controversies in your columns, and in order to assure inquirers that a belief in Spiritualism and a belief also in the inspiration of the written Word of God are by no means incompatible. EDMUND D. ROGERS. Old Palace-road, Norich. March 4, 1870. SIR.—In the last number of the SPIRITUALIST I read a letter from Mr. C. W. Pearce, of South Stockwell, in reply to one by W. H. The purpose of Mr. Pearce appears to be to condemn certain propositions advanced by W. H., one of which is the divinity of our Saviour. Alluding to the statements set forth in the first chapters of Matthew and Luke, Mr. Pearce demurs to this dogma, submitting the same to the “test of reason." Arguing from the analysis of natural law as it exhibits itself in the generation of the human race, he comes to the conclu sion that Jesus being a man, He must necessarily have had a human father. Speaking of the perfection of the Creator’s laws, he says, “ One of these laws is that before a child can be conceived, there must be a union between man and woman," Of course there must, in the fulfilment of the natural law of propagation, and there needs no dogmatism to prove a fact known to the most ignorant savage. But the observation cannot apply to the conception of Jesus of Nazareth, for that was supernatural. It is a subject of such great delicacy, that in its very nature it is scarcely proper, however carefully treated, to be placed before the eye of the general reader but were it not for this consideration, Mr. Editor, I could by a little anatomical and physiological detail, place the matter in such a plain and simple point of view, that the immaculate conception of Jesus Christ could be no longer considered such a great mystcry and improbability. I will conclude by putting the question to any sceptic who may read this letter “Do you believe in a God the Creator of the universe?" None but an atheist, we know, will deny it. Well, then surely the Being who could create the universe could perform such a trifling operation as the impregnation of the germ of a human being, and for the stupendous purpose of rescuing a sinful world from its lost condition. It was a miracle indeed, and great was its object. But there are persons who make this fact a great stumbling-block, because it is contrary to natural law. Yet such is the caprice of human nature, that they will go to a séance, impelled by curiosity, and witness certain facts which in the present condition of scientific knowledge can only be accountd for on the presumption that what takes place is through spiritual agency, fully believing the same, and are thoroughly satisfied with the genuineness of the manifestations, yet demur to the immaculate conception of Christ. Now, if a spirit, often no doubt an ungodly one, can enter into, or in some manner physically influence dead, inert matter in the form of chairs and tables, causing these articles of furniture to eut extraordinary capers round a room, and often for no good practical purpose, surely the Father of