THE HARMLESS OPINION OF THE REVOLUTION OF Humane Souls; As a probable HYPOTHESIS, And very serviceable to clear many DOUBTS, And answer many Objections of ATHEISTS AGAINST THE Divine Providence, AND THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.  
Modestly defended in a Reply to a late Treatise, Signed by J. H. Printed at Oxford, and called by him, An Answer to some Queries, proposed by W. C. or a Refutation of Helmont's Pernicious Error, etc.  
LONDON: Printed for Sarah Ho●kins, in George-yard, Lombard street, 1694.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 14. line 27. read their Unbelief, p. 19 l. 24. r. query. p. 20. l. 20. r. room, p. ●1. for envying, r. inveighing ib. l. 1● after to wit, r. not, p. 23. r. Memoirs, p. 25. l. 1. r. good, l. ● after Allegories, r. prove, l. 11. f. material, r. natural, l. 21. f. ●version, r. retorsion, p. 27. l. 14. f. raw, r. rape, p. 28. l. 22. sûa, r. sûo, p. 29. l. 12. f. work, r. stroke, p. 31. l. 15. of. Person add I answer no more then, p. 33. l. ult. f. Souls, r. Bodies, p. 3● l. 6. f. contract, r. tract, p. 45. deal. and that cons●●ently o● Months and Days, p. 46. l. 6. r. Pythagoras, p. 48. l. 15. after l. r. have.   

THE HARMLESS OPINION OF THE REVOLUTION OF Humane Souls, etc.  
DIvers things in his Title Page need some Correction, or Animadversion; 1. That he calleth it Helmont's Error, and in the Body of his Treatise he calleth them that favour it, Helmonti●●s; but why it should be ascribed to Helmont ●y this Author, I know not, unless purposely ●o defame him, which ought not to be; nor ●ath he any more just Cause thus to asperse Belmont, than to asperse H. Moor, late of Cambridge; a Man of great Note, Fame, and Esteem of the judgement of this Man's Brethren, of his Profession, for his asserting in some of his Printed Books, The Doctrine of he Pre-existence of Humane Souls, that is of very near Affinity unto this of the Revolutions, yea so near, that it is lame, and insignificant without it, so as to call the Doctrine of ●●re-existence moor's Pernicious Error, or the favourers of it Morions, a thing, neither Christian, nor civil 2. That he calleth it not only Error, but 〈◊〉 Pernicious Error; he b●gs the Matter, but hath not proved it, as the sequel may make appear to the Intelligent and Impartial Reader. 3. He misrepresents the Hypothesis of the Revolutions, as if it held, that every Man is often born, and hath twelve Ages 〈◊〉 Trial allowed him in the World by God; b●● it is not so affirmed universally and absolutely but only conditionally upon the Supposition th●● they are not converted the first, second, or thir● time, etc. that they live in the World, so a rather than sail, they shall have at least so many; but such who are converted unto God and perfectly restored out of the Fall the firs● time they live in the World, need no Revolution, and have none, except in some extraordinary Case that they be sent again to d● Good to others, as the Jews did judge some 〈◊〉 the Prophets were, and as some (by Peter's Testimony) judged our Saviour to be either Jeremiah or Elias, but that was their great Mistake. 4. That he saith it is warmly contended for, in, and about Lambourn, in Wiltshire. I suppose none there, or elsewhere, contend about it, as any Matter of ●aith, but only show their favouring it, as a probable and serviceable Hypothesis, so making it rather a Subject of Philosophy, than of Divinity, like the Hypothesis of the Earth's Motion, now generally well liked by the most Learned; a thing, not many Years ago, as generally disliked; and though many places of Scripture seem to favour the Earth's Motion, yet that will prove neither of them to be fit, to be made a Subject of Religious Controversy, or Matter of Faith, so as either to impose the Faith of them upon our Christian Brethren, or that any should arraign the Favourers of it as guilty of Pernicious Errors, destructive to the Christian Faith, but rather let all exercise their Christian Chatity one towards another, if they agree in the Fundamental and Principal Matters of the Christian Faith, and live Christianly, allowing a Latitude in lesser Matters to differ one from another in some particular Persuasions, whether Philosophical, or Theological.  
That in this Epistle he calleth it a Whimsical, Absurd, and Trifling Opinion, more Modesty had better become him, whom he confesseth to be young; and if he be young in Years, his Book showeth him to be younger in solid Knowledge, or sound Learning, and that he is but a Novice, and bad Proficient in these Sciences mentioned by him (and whereof he professeth himself skilful) called Physics and Metaphysics. But as to the Opinion itself, better and wiser Men than he have thought it neither Whimsical nor Absurd, but Rational; and seeing he hath judged it a trifling Opinion, why doth he judge it Pernicious, as making God the Author of Sin, and contradicting the Doctrine of the Resurrection (one of the great Fundamentals of the Christian Faith) surely, that Opinion, which is so very Pernicious to the Christian Faith, can be no trifling Opinion, but of great Moment and Weight, not to be slighted as a trifling Matter, but opposed and refuted with stronger and better Arguments than this Author hath done; all that he hath said against, it deserving much, rather the name of a Trifle.  
In his answer to the first Query, from Luke 6.38. and Matth. 7.2. The same measure you meet, the same shall be measured or meted to you again; he seemeth first to confine it to that of judging, whereas it is clear from the Context, especially in Luke, that it not only relates to judging, but also to Works of Charity. See the foregoing words of the same Verse, but afterwards he alloweth it may be extended more generally, confessing the meaning of that Passage of Scripture above-cited may be, that thereby Christ doth threaten to punish Offenders in a way suitable to their Crimes; and besides that, this Punishment is sometimes inflicted in this Life, but (saith he) here's the point at which we part; he concludes, that if God should fa●● to punish an Offender before he cometh to his Grave, he must be born into the World again, to suffer in like manner, as he hath offended; whereas I conclude (he saith) concerning such a one, that so dies unpunished, that his Doom is deferred till the great Day of our Accounts; in order to which, he shall rise again, and then shall God reward every Man according to his Works, citing Matth. 16.27. he adds, this Life is no time of Recompense, citing on the Margin, Eccles. 9.1, 2, 4. Job 21.7. Psal. 73.5, 9  
Reply. Why doth he so positively charge the Person, he answereth (with concluding) whereas he querieth, and showeth himself rather an Inquirer, than an Asserter, as to the sense of this, and some other places of Scripture: But for the better understanding the present Case, I propose the following Considerations. 1. That every Offence that a Man commits against his Neighbour hath a two fold Gild in it, one as it relates to God another as it relates to his Neighbour, whom he hath offended; the Offence against God is either forgiven upon sincere Repentance, or if not repent of, is to be punished after Death, at the great Day of Account; but the Offence or Gild, as it relates to the Neighbour offended, as in case of Oppression, Murder, or the like, is not so pardoned upon sincere Repentance, as not to be punished either in this Life, or some time after, as probably by living again, and then receiving that punishment, if the Person offended have not Satisfaction made to him, or perhaps it may be allowed, that if the offended Person doth forgive the Offender upon his sincere Acknowledgement of the Offence; Satisfaction being made that way, he is not liable to Punishment for it either in the present Life or the future. And is deserveth our serious Consideration, that God will not only have us seek his Forgivenness, in order to receive his Pardon, but we must seek Forgiveness from the Persons that we have offended, in order to have them forgive us also, or otherwise there seemeth a Punishment, suitable to the Offence, to remain due to him that offendeth, which cannot be supposed to be at the Day of Judgement in such a particular Case, when the Offence is forgiven of God as to his part: And it is worthy also of Observation, that under the Law, in case of Theft or Robbery, no Sacrifice could avail without Restitution, and in case of murder (even as it is at this day) Repentance doth not expiate the Crime; without giving Life for Life, as among Men, tho' possibly it may be allowed, that if one murder the other, and the Person murdered sincerely forgive him at the instant of death, it may so alter the Case, that the Punishment of Death may not be required of him in any following Revolution; for every Man hath a Right given him of God, as his Creator, to his Goods and Life; and if a Man take this Right from him by Injustice, Justice requireth it to be restored to him by some Satisfaction of the thing itself, or the Equivalent, which to use the Author's Words, may be called the same Analogick measure. But now if God hath pardoned the Offence, as it immediately relates to him; but the Offended Person hath not pardoned it, it is no Analogous measure of Punishment, for the Offender to be cast into Hell Fire, for his Offence barely against his Neighbour, when God hath forgiven it, as it respecteth him; and therefore it seemeth probable it must be punished with some suitable and analogous Punishment, either in the present or ●uture Life by Revolution, before the Day of Judgement, seeing the Punishment of Hell Fire, (upon the supposition of God's forgiving what relates immediately to him is too severe and ●o way Analogous in that Case; and seeing the places of Scripture above-cited, seem chief to relate to Men's Offences against their Neighbours, the Punishments seem chief, or rather only to relate to the times of Life here in this World, and not to that which is to come, when it may be supposed that God hath forgiven, or may forgive afterwards the Offence as immediately relative to himself. 2. It is a Maxim among the Mystic or Cabbalist Authors, that seemeth very agreeable both to Scripture and good Reason; si sit judicium infra, non est judicium supra, i. e. If Judgement be executed here below in this World, it is not executed above, or in the World to come for the same Offence, for no Earthly Judge punisheth twice for the same Offence; may it not therefore be allowed, that to prevent the severe Punishment of Hell Fire, that cometh upon the finally Impenitent, it pleaseth God to punish Men here in this World with less severe Punishments than Hell Fire, which is the most severe, according to which there is a Maxim among the Hebrew Mystic Authors, that God doth punish the People of Israel with long and great Punishments in this World, that they may escape the more severe Punishment of Hell Fire in the World to come, they believing that every Israelite shall inherit the Felicity of the World to come, however severely they are here punished for their Sins, in order to their Amendment, all their Punishments here being Fatherly Corrections; and this may not only be extended to all the natural Branches of Israel, but to all God's Elect and Heirs of Salvation, of Gentiles, as well as of Jews, and seemeth well warranted by Scripture, both of the Old and New-Testament, that saith all Israel shall be saved, and the whole House of Israel, which comprehendeth all God's Elect every where, both of Jews and Gentiles; and thus the Cabalists expound the place in the Mystical Sense, Gen. 25.28. Isaac loved Esau, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quia venatio in ore ejus,) because the Hunting, or Prey, was in his Mouth; (see the Hebrew Text) understanding the word His, to relate not to Isaac, but to Esau himself, Isaac foreseeing by the Spirit of Prophecy, that Esau's Posterity should greatly afflict the Posterity of Jacob in the latter Days, for a Punishment of their Sins; and he foreseeing that this Punishment should be for their Good, and to prevent their being punished with Hell Fire in the World to come, therefore he loved Esau, the rather on that account, and accordingly the Jew's rec●o● that the Gentiles or Nations that so hardly now use them, are of Esau, and do but fulfil Isaac's Prophecy, that they may only have evil things here in this World, that so they may escape greater vils in the World to come, as Christ said concerning Lazarus, He had his evil things in this Life: And why many good Men are so greatly afflicted with Poverty, and other Chastisements in this Life, seem to have a reference to the like Case. The places of Scripture above-cited by the Author, prove not, that this Life is no time of Recompense in any Case; for he granteth that in some Cases it is, and these places indeed prove, as well as common Experience daily teacheth us, that many wicked and cruel Oppressors escape Punishment in this present time of Life; but that they are not punished in their Posterity some time before the end of the World, they prove not, and that cited place in Job 27. seemeth rather to prove the contrary, even that Oppressors and wicked Men are punished in their Children and Posterity, as v. 19 God layeth up his Iniquity, (see the Marginal Note, i. e ●he Punishment of his Iniquity) for his Children, he rewardeth him, and he shall knew it; but how this is done, will appear more hereafter.  
In his Answer to the second Query, from Rev 13.10 he restraineth, that He, particularly to some bloody Persecutor of the Christian Religion, either Nero, or Domitian, or both; who having butchered the Christians, were butchered themselves, and the Romans afterwards taken Captives by the Goths and Vandals, so that they had the same measure meted to them again in this Life.  
Reply. As his applying that place of Scripture by a particular Limitation, or Restriction to Nero or Domitian, is very singular, and contrary to the general Sense of Expositors, so it is very absurd, for it relates to some great Series or Succession of bloody Persecutors, after the beginning of the 42 Months, and entering of the Apostasy, and the time of the Church's flight into the Wilderness, for the same space of time otherwise called 1260 Days, or three Years and a half, as the Context maketh plainly appear, many of which Persecutors, as the persecuting Emperors in the fifth, sixth, and following Centuries after Christ's Resurrection, died a natural Death in their Beds, when they then lived, and yet here it is foretold by John, That they, and such as joined with them in bloody Persecution should suffer the like Punishment in their Posterity and Successors in after Ages, as propably hath been in part already fulfilled, and yet is more to be fulfilled: But Math. 26.52. Speaketh universally, For all they that take the Sword, shall perish with the Sword, said Christ.  
In his Answer to the third Query, he giveth away the Cause more than he is ware of, or understandeth, if he knew the manner of the Revolution as it is generally held by the chief defenders of it, he would go near to say the same; for they hold that Men are not only punished in their Posteitry and successors by Revolving in them, but that Ancestors do frequently Revolve in their Children in After-Ages, in order to Conversion together with them. But that this noted place in Rom. 11. should only be understood of the Posterity of them that should live in these After-ages yet to come, excluding the Fathers and Ancestors, is expressly contradictory both to this place, and many other places of Scripture, that say all Israel, whereas the Posterity excluding the Fathers of so many Ages and Generations backwards, would be but● very small part of Israel. And indeed the many Arguments used by Paul in that Chapter, to prove that the natural Branches that were cut off by them in belief, shall be grafted in again; even all of them by true Faith in Christ Jesus, either proveth that the Fathers that died in their unbelief, shall be grafted in again, or the Apostles Arguments seem not effectual and of force, for he Argueth universally concerning them all and not a part of them. See ver. 16, 24, 26, 27, 31, 32.  
In his Answer to the fourth Query, he again wrongs the Person, querying, saying he concludes, whereas he but querieth the meaning of that place of Scripture, Matth. 23.35. And he wholly passeth by that which is most material in that passage, viz. That these Jews to whom Christ spoke, are charged expressly with slaying Zacharias, whom they slew said Christ, between the Temple and the Altar; now if they had no share in it, how could he charge it upon them as their Fact? But his main defence, is that by these words of Scripture Exod. 20. where it is said God visits the Sins of the Fathers to the third and fourth Generation. God doth not limit his Justice, as if it did never reach Offenders beyond the third and fourth Generation; a greater number doth not exclude the less, but contain the lesser under it.  
Reply, What is this but to sport with Scripture, to put such strained Sense and Contradiction upon it? He may as well say, when the Scripture saith There were eight Persons saved in the Ark, he may at this rate of perverting Scripture say there were eighty or eight hundred, or as many more, as he may fancy, and defend himself by alleging if there were eighty or eight hundred there were eight, but this is mere trifling instead of solid answering. God said an Edomite was not to enter the Congregation of Israel until the fourth Generation, nor a Bastard or Moabite until the tenth. But it would be a gross perversion of Scripture to extend the Edomites entrance beyond four Generations, or the Bastards and Moabites beyond ten, seeing the Scripture preciesly mentions these numbers. His Example out of Scripture as 1 Sam. 2.31, 32. 2 Kings. 5.27. and 1 Sam. 15.2. prove not what he intends, unless be had proved that these men's Posterity did neither Sin in their Fathers, nor that their Fathers by Revolution did not live in them; but in this he falleth short, not understanding the true and real Hypothesis of that Doctrine which he undertaketh to refute, but that he faith it is no injustice in God to punish Children for their Father's Faults when they imitate their Father's wickedness, I answer, if their Sin be only bare imitation, and doing the same wicked things, they are justly punished indeed for their own Faults; but if they were not accessary to their Father's Sins, but only that they commit the same Sins, they are punished for their own Sins, according to that place of Scripture Every one shall die for his own Iniquity; the Son shall not bear the Iniquty of the Father; but the Soul that sinneth shall die; and every one that eateth the sour Grapes, his Teeth shall be set on edge. But their Father's Sins are not imputed to them only for their bare imitation, but for having a share in their very Sins, either whilst they were in their Father's Loins, and acting in them, (which is one Branch of the Revolutions) or afterwards living together with them in distinct Bodies. And because (according to the Hypothesis of the Revolutions as delivered by Cabbalist and Mystic Writers) the Souls of the Fathers do frequently Revolve in their Posterity, as their Grand Children, or children's Children, therefore they are punished in, and with their Children, as their Children Sinned in. and with them, even as we all Sinned within Adam; and his Sin is not our Sin by bare imputation as some allege, but by real participation, the Souls of the Children while in their Parents Bodies being capable to act in them Good or Evil, as it is said of Levi, who received Tithes, he paid Tithes in Abraham, and though the Souls of his Brothers were in Abraham, as well as he, yet it is not said of them but of him. For his Reference to Dr. cradock's Sermon on Eccles 9.2. I have not had opportunity to see it, and think it not material to inquire after it. Next, whereas he argueth that Christ maketh a manifest distinction between the Jews and their Fathers, which he would not have done had they been the same Persons; again he saith the same Men could not be the Children and Fathers too, as our Inquirer imagines.  
To this it is easily Replied, that though there is a manifest distinction betwixt the Fathers and the Children, yet this hinders not, but that, without all Confusion, the Children might have both Lived and Acted in their Fathers. As Levi paid Tithes in Abraham, and yet Levi was not Abraham. And as the Souls of the Children may or do impregnate the Fathers without Confusion, (See for this in Gen. 46.26.) So may the Souls of the Fathers live in the Children, by Impregnation or Revolution, without all Confusion, as the chief Assertors of the Hypothesis of the Revolutions do hold; for thus they understand these words, Exod. 20. Visiting the Iniquities of the Fathers upon or in the Children to the third and fourth Generation. That is when the Souls of the Fathers live again by Revolution three ●or four several times in the Children, they are gently corrected and punished in order to their Melioration or Amendment, which is called their Visiting; but if they do not Amend they suffer Excision for some long tract of time, and have not the benefit of any farther Revolution until that tract of time be expired. But if in the third or fourth Revolution they amend, and are Meliorated in any degree, they may have many Revolutions, as the Cabalists say, Even as many they need were it to a Thousand Generations. For so they understand these words, Show Mercy to Thousands of them that love me, and regard my Commandments. (so the translation) which is said to express the rich and abundant Mercy of God; but not that so many shall be needed, as Christ advised the Disciples to forgive not only seven times a Day but seventy seven times. And yet none need so many times Forgiveness every Day, for it is probable few if any need or have above twelve, answering the twelve Hours of the Day. How beit, I find not that the Ancient Cabbalist Writers limit the number of the Revolutions to twelve, that being rather queried than asserted as a probable Circumstance, by some private Persons but whether true or false, toucheth not the substance of the Opinion itself, as neither do some other Circumstantial ●hings Query in the two hundred Queries or Historically Narated in the Printed Epistle cited by ●his Author. But that he saith, The Inquirer ●●th not Argu● from the Murder of Abel; that bears equal weight with that of Zacharias; but ●his is only the Authors own Conceit, but the Argument holds equally good from the Murder of Abel, as that of Zacharias, nor do his two supposed Reasons he brings ruin the proof, for the Souls of all those Jews upon whom the Blood of Abel was charged, might have been at that very time in Cain, when he murdered righteous Abel, and might have been consenting to that Act of murder in Cain, as according to the Doctrine of the Cabalists, concerning Pre-existence, we all Sinned in Adam being in him when he Sinned, and consenting to his Sin. And it is but a weak and trifling Objection that some make against this, that so many Souls could not be contained in Adam, for Souls being Spirits, and in corporeal Being's, do not justle for room as Bodies do. There were seven unclean Spirits in Mary Magdalen, and a Legion of unclean Spirits (the Legion containing 6000, and more) in one Man. But if Spirits did justle for rooms as Bodies do, so many could not have been in them.  
His second supposed Reason proceeds from his own Ignorance or in Advertency, and not from the Letter cited by him, for though the Letter and Book of the two hundred Queries, allow to every Man (if need be, and that they are not perfectly converted and restored sooner a Thousand Years to live in the Body, yet they allow four Thousand Years for the whole time from the first to last, as suppose the Intervals of time that Souls are diflodged from all Humane Bodies, until they return to live in Bodies, together with that time they live in Bodies, till all their Revolutions be finished, making up the space of four Thousand Years, See for this in the Book of the two Hunred Queries Query 27, 28, 61. all which expeesly mention four Thousand Years.  
His flourish by his envying against the favourers of this innocent Hypothesis grounded only on his Mistakes, and inadvertency I let pass without any other Answer on this Head.  
In his Answer to the fifth Query, from Ezek. 16.25. He is grossly mistaken, as if these words did imply an exalted manner of denying that ever Jerusalem, (to wit the Stone, or Timber, or Houses,) but the People shall return to her former estate, for the following words in ver. 60, 61, 62, 63. do plainly intimate that she, to wit, the People shall return, and God will (Mercifully) remember his Covenant with them, and shall have this good Effect on them, that they shall remember their ways, and shall be ashamed when she shall receive her two Sisters, Sodom and Samaria; so that the words are no denial, but a positive promise to Jerusalem, and the other two, viz. Sodom and Samaria. His Reasons against this are not worth answering, as if by Cities were to be meant not the People, but the Houses of Stone and Timber, whereas it is plain, the People only is to be understood, and not the Houses with their Materials, or as if all returns were made within a Thousand Years, according to the Hypothes●● of the Revolutions; but that is showed above to be his mistake, the whole Interval being four Thousand Years. And his third Reason is very weak and idle like the former, for tho●● all the Citizens of Sodom were destroyed, and had no posterity of their own to revolve in, the● might revolve in others having nearest Affinity or Relation to them that did remain of other Cites.  
In his Answer to Query six from Psal. 90. ●● Thou turnest Man to Destruction, and sayest, Return ye Children of Men. He allegeth this Return is at the general Resurrection; but the following words correct his mistake, that have a necessary reference to them, for a Thousand Years in thy sight are but as yesterday, when it is past and as a Watch in the Night, which Peter, i● his ● Epist. 3.8. expounds, as holding fort Gods long Suffering towards Men in general giving them four Thousand Years space from first to last, in order to repent and amend, which is but as four Days, or as four Watch's o●● Night; therefore this Return of Men, seemed not to be understood of the general Resurrection, but of the Revolutions of the Souls of Men; and the like may be said in answer to what he saith, from that other place in Eccles. 1.4. Generation goeth, and Generation cometh. Which must needs have another sense than what we say, Year cometh and Year goeth; because of the Similitudes and Examples, that Solomon, bringeth from the Sun, the Winds, and the Rivers; for the same Year goeth away cometh not again; but the same Sun that goeth down, riseth again; and the same Wind that goeth to the South, returneth to the North; and the same Rivers that come from the Sea, return to the Sea. Therefore the same Generation of Men in Solomon's time, that went off, did afterwards return again, until they finish their Circuit, excepting such particulars as were made perfect, and so need no Revolution. And here he anticipates that Objection, why do they not remember former things? vea. 11. There is no Remembrance of former Thing. Which cannot relate to Memories or Records, for such there were, but to Revolutions it doth well refer.  
In his Answer to Queiry seven, from 1 Pet. 3.18, 19, 20. He takes it for granted without any solid Proof, that Christ his preaching to them of the old World, was his Spirit in Noah, but this is at large refuted in the Book of two Hundred Queries; and is is plain the preaching of Christ to them was after his Death, and consequently long after Noah. Again, his preaching had a good effect upon them to Conversion; for it is said, They were sometimes disobedient, and therefore not always; but in Noah's time they remained disobedient, until after Christ's Death; for they were all drowned for their disobedience. And indeed Calvin, is so ingenious, as to confess it relates to the time of Christ, after his Death, though he hath another gloss upon it, less propable, than is here enquired. But the Author doth greatly mistake the enquirer, as if by Prison, he meant Humane Bodies, for he meaneth not Humane Bodies, but their Sins, and the power of Satan, in which they were held until living again they were converted after Christ's Death by the preaching of the Gospel; yet it is not to be supposed that all were converted, as neither all the Sodomites at their last Revolution shall be all converted, for the words of Christ imply that some shall not be converted, but perish, It shall be more Tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the Day of Judgement, etc.  
In his Answer to the eight and last Query, Taken from the Metaphor of a good Husbandman, that new Grafts and Transplants his Trees, that so at last he may have kood Fruit. He allegeth the Metaphorical Arguments will prove nothing, but the weakness of such as make them.  
Reply. Metaphorical Arguments, such as Parables, and Allegories what is intended by them, with respect to the scope and intention by them, when dully applied, and the Anology is due and proper, as in this case it is, being warranted by Scripture; for Paul tells us, Rom. 11. That the material Branches that in his Days, were cut off for their Sin of unbelief, shall be Grafted in again, in some following Age or Time of the World, so as to be made true Members of the Church of Christ. Now how can this be, but by their living again by Revolution, in order to their Conversion, seeing we find no ground in Scripture to believe that Souls are Converted any where else, but as they live here in Humane Bodies on Earth? His Arguments from Metaphor, by way of reversion, being partly false in matter of Fact, and partly improper and unduly applied; I need not spend time nor Paper to refute it? I say partly false in matter of Fact, because contrary to his assertion, a wise Gardener will remove his Graft from his Stock, he hath once inserted it; if the Stock prove bad, and happen to die and corrupt, he will remove it to another stock, and not easily lose it. Also a wise Gardener may by several Grafting or Transplanting of the same Tree, make better Fruit, as experience hath proved. But the Author it seems, has as little skill in good Husbandry, as he hath in Scripture Mysteries. And his last Argument on this head is most improper, because Man dies not as a Tree dies, as the Author confesseth, the Soul of a Man after Death survives, and though corruptable with Sin, yet the wise Gardener knowing that it is capable of amendment, thinks fit to give it a Trial of a new life again in a Humane Body.  
Having thus briefly discovered the insufficiency of the Author's Answers to the Inquirers queries, I shall in the next place with the like briefness consider, and show the weakness and insolidity of his pretended Reasons against this harmless Opinion.  
His first Reason is, suppose some bloody Tyranty, as Nero, to have taken away the Lives often Thousand Christians, and by more than a Hundred kinds of Death; he argueth, that by this Hypothefis of having the same measure returned ●o him again, he must die ten Thousand times, and more than by a Hundred kinds of Death.  
Reply. This will not follow, for even according to that divine instinct of Justice that is in Man; if one Man kill ever so many, Justice requires no more, but that he die for all his Crimes, with some additional Circumstances of his Death, to make his punishment the more severe: And the Authors own distinction of a Analogical measure of punishment, may serve to answer him here, but this Analogical measure cannot be understood to be the greatest and severest Punishment of all, viz the torment of Hell Fire, for Ages of Ages simply for offences done to their fellow Creatures, but rather some suitable Punishment executed here in this World, as I have said above upon the Answer to the first Query; and the like may be said in case of a raw Rebellion, or self-murder, some Analogical Punishment, such as the most wise and just Judge of the whole World shall Judge most fit to be inflicted, is sufficient in these cases, the greatest and most severe Punishments of Hell-fire, being reserved only for such as demonstrate themselves incorrigible after all these less severe Punishments here in this World have been inflicted on them: For Christ himself hath taught us, that the proper Punishments of every Sin is not Hell, f●ire, but only of the worst sort, as Contempt of God, finally Impenitency and Unbelief, after God hath extended much long-suffering towards them? see Matt. 5.22. where three several degrees of Sin is held forth, the first two against a Man's Neighbour, as Anger, and Contempt, (without cause) they are only punishable by the Judgement of the Council, to wit, by the Superior Judicatories above, unto which Superior Judicatories above, the Jews had their inferior Judicatories below, corresponding as the Tabernacles, and things of the Law here below, did correspond to their Patterns above, and to this Christ seemeth here to allude, but for a Man to say to his Brother, (without a cause) thou Fool, is a manifest Contempt of God, and reflects upon the great Creator himself, and therefore he that is Guilty of this Sin, is in danger of Hell-fire, if he repent not timely of it.  
His second Reason is that by the Hypothesis of the Revoluteons', God would be the Author of Sin, because whatsoever God hath ordered to come to pass in a certain and necessary manner, of that he is the Author.  
Reply. Here the Author is greatly guilty against himself, by his own inadvertncy, Sua se jugulans gladio, killing himself. I mean his own Argument, by his own Sword; for headed grant above, that Domitian and Nero, who butchered the Christians, were butchered themselves, and the Romans afterwards taken Captives, by the Goths and Vandals. And in these cases that Law of Justice of meeting the same measure unto them, was fulfilled in this Life. Now let the Author clear it to us, whether there was not a Divine Hand, and Providence in these Cases, and whether the Divine Justice is not herein demonstrated: And, if this will not prove God to be the Author of Sin in these Cases, no more will it in any other of the like Nature; and when Jerusalem, (to wit, the People) did put our Saviour to Death, and about 40 Years afterward, were severely punished, 1100000 of them being slain by Titus Vespasian, which was a most just Work upon them; and many other, the like Cases and Instances, wherein all sincere Christians acknowledge a Divine Hand of Justice, as when Jerusalem was formerly destroyed by Nabuchadnezzar, and yet, they piously believe, God is clear, tho' the Instruments frequently are wicked, unjust and cruel, and that he is not the Author of their Wickedness, and he hath a most infallible and perfect knowledged and Foresight of all that cometh to pass in this World, be it ever so bad; and he can, and doth so bound the Sins of Men, and show his overruling Hand over both the Sins, and the Sinners, that in all, and over all, his Power, and Justice, is glorified, and his Mercy exalted towards all them that love him.  
But it is no ways proper here, to dispute about the Decree● of God; for it would make a Digression from the Subject that is proper, to that which is foreign, and wherein all Processions in Christendom are concerned, to clear God from being the Author of Sin in such Cases, when Men are here in this World punished suitably, according to their Crimes, as well as the Favourers of the Opinion of the Revolutions, unless the Author will say, that all such things are come to pass in this World by mere Chance, or Accident, without Divine Providence; but this, I hope, he will be more pious, than to affirm.  
His Third Reason, being of the like Importance with the former, the same Answer may suffice: Beside, his Inadvertency is great; that he considers not that Repentance, or Satisfaction, made to the Person offended, and the offended Person, forgiving the Offence, as frequently cometh to pass, putteth a stop to this Author's Imaginary Wheel, or Progress of Wickedness, without end.  
His Fourth Reason is only a Query, which is but a dull and faint way of arguing; for if neither the Author, nor I, could answer all the nice and curious Queries, that one could raise about the Resurrection, o● some other great Point of the Christian Faith, it will not therefore follow, that such querying is a Refutation of those Doctrines. But in his Prosecution of his Query, he supposeth some things to be absurd, which the Favourers or Asserters of the Hypothesis of the Revolutions will not grant to be absurd; for they are Parts and Branches of it; when fully explained. One is, That two o● three Souls cannot revolve in one Humane Body; but the Cabalists and Mystic Authors, who assert the Doctrine of the Revolutions, say, they can, and that they frequently so do, and this Author has said nothing as yet, to prove the Absurdity of it; when he doth, in his next Answer he may have a Reply. If one would argue, this would make a Confusion of Persons, that Levi was in Abraham, together with his Brethren; to wit, as to their Souls, and perhaps also, as to the Seminal Principles of their Bodies, which are very Spiritual, and therefore well enough consistent together for some due time; for the Body being as a House, or Lodging to the Soul, why may not divers Souls lodge in one Body for a time, as well as ●ivers Men in one House? But it is confessed, that every Soul shall have its proper Body, in its own proper Season and Time. Another thing he supposeth to be absurd, which will not be granted to him, is, that some Souls of Men, drowned in Noah's Flood, do remain unprovided with Bodies to this very day; tho' this is no necessary Consequence, yet until he prove the Absurdity of it, let it remain as a possible thing so to be; for according to Cabbalist Authors, many Souls that sinned in, and with Adam, suffered Excision, and remain unprovided with Bodies to this very day, which they call new Souls, (not as being newly created; for the Hypothesis holds, that all Souls were created together, and put in Adam's Body,) the first time they come into Humane Bodies, since Adam's Fall, and that still such new Souls will be coming into the World, for the space of 6000 Years, from Adam's Creation, and no longer. It is true, there is a Query in the Treatise of the 200 Queries, whether all Souls of Mankind had not begun their Revolutions before 2000 Years were expired, which the Authors, or Writers of that Treatise did seem to favour in the Affirmative; but upon better Consideration and Acquaintance with Cahbalist Authors, that hold the Negative, they are better informed; and here, once for all, let me advise the Readers of this Treatise of the 200 Queries, not to turn every Query into a Position, or Affirmative Conclusion, as some have too unadvisedly done; for the Person or Persons that did give forth these 200 Queries, were not clear in many of them, so as to make them Positions, or Conclusions, either Affirmative, or Negative, but rather left that to a farther consideration, or to some other Person or Persons, that with more clear Light and Understanding, might be enabled to give positive Answers to every one of them, which yet hath not been done; and it is not to be supposed, that this Author that is so prejudiced, against this Harmless Opinion, shall be the Man that can do it, except he lay aside his prejudice, and be further enlightened. But here I perceive, some will be ready to object, what time can these new Souls have to run their 12 Revolutions, more or less, after 6000 Years are expired, when but a 1000 Years shall remain before the end. But, to this it is easily answered, there will be no occasion for Souls then to revolve; for the Necessity and Use of Revolutions, will be supplied some better way; to wit, by a greater increase of Light and Grace, and a longer time of Life, (such as was before the Flood) and such as shall then be converted, and become Saints, shall not die, but be changed, as the Scripture plainly declareth. And, as concerning the times of the Souls (that revolve) absences from the Body, nothing can be universally or generally determined; for, according to the Cabbalist Authors, some Souls return very soon into Humane Souls, as the Souls of such as die in Infancy, or are not great Sinners; but such as die great Sinners, and are guilty of such Sins, that deserve Excision, which Moses' Law teacheth, (namely, what particular Sins deserve Excision) these may remain able●●t from Bodies for a long contract of Time as●uppose 300 Years, or more, or less, as the Divin Wisdom and Justice hath appointed; but, that some do return quickly after Death, or the Dissolution of the former Body, divers Cabbalist Authors affirm, and I know no sufficient Reason to contradict it.  
His 5th. Reason I have already answered, by telling him that all Revolutions, (according to Cabbalist Authors will end at the Expiration of 6000 ●●ars, from Adam's Creation, so it will be all one thing, whether Souls then be in their tenth or eleventh, or first and second Revolutions, for there will be need of any more.  
His 6th. Reason is soon dispatched; Solomon tells us, That there is no Remembrance of  things at present, (but at the great Day of Accounts, when the Books shall be opened, there will be a Remembrance of all things,) his Argument is most weak, and impertinent, as if Men's living again can be to no purpose, or of no service for their Amendment, or Melioration, except they remember former things, or as if their Punishments would have no Service to their Good.  
Reply. How many times doth God punish Nations, Countries, Cities, and particular Persous, for particular ●ins, that many, or most are not sensible o●, and have no● a distinct knowledge of, and yet these ●uni●●●●ents are of Service to them, and are blessed, 〈◊〉 sanctified to many, for their Conversion and ●●ormation of Li●e; the Application is easy 〈◊〉 he Ca●e in Hand: And, to move Men to ●epe●tance, for former Sins, whether committed in the present Life, or any former time of L●●e, it may suffice, that they are sensible they have such S●●s in them, and that they must be cleaused from them before they can enjoy the Peace and Favour of God, and enter into the Kingdom of God; ●or how many do sincerely repent of Pride and Envy, and the like Sins, and do sincerely labour to crucify these, and the like Sins in them, with great Success, by the help of God●s Grace, and yet they cannot tell neither when nor where the Root of these Sins began to take place in them; for it is but too apparent, that Men generally, not only bring into the 〈◊〉 ●orld with them the Seed of Adam's Transgression, but other strong, and great Roots of Sin; that had grown up in them, when formerly they lived in the World; I l●t pass his E●cursion on this Head, grounded on his own ●●●●●●ation, as of his proffering to pay 2000 l for ●●00 l Present to a Man at his second Revolution, having no other Service, but to gratify his jocund Humour, or perhaps to let the World know that he is so rich, or of so good Credit, that he can give good Security for 2000 l. to be paid after so many Years Expiration.  
Thus having answered his pretended Arguments, taken from Reason, against the Revolutions of Souls; let us in the last place consider his Argument; he essays to bring from Scripture, but with as little Success.  
His first Argument is, that it interfers with the Doctrine of the Resurrection; for if the Soul have lived in more Bodies than one, in shall rise in all these Bodies, but the Soul riseth but in one Body. Therefore, etc.  
Reply. It seemeth this Author, for all his professed Skill in Physics, and Metaphysics, hath but little knowledge in either of them, otherwise he could not argue so weakly on this Head. Doth he not know that the Physics teach that all natural Bodies, both of Animals, and of Men, are in a continual change of their visible and gross Parts even as a River that continually changeth its Water, so that perhaps not one drop of Water is now in it, that was in it some small time passed; and this my Physics taught me, which I learned when I was a Schoolboy, and I well remember that the great Objection then that was made against this continual ●hange of the visible and gross Parts of the natural Bodies of Mankind, was, that it seemed to interfere with the Resurrection of the Body; for by the Doctrine of Physics, almost universally received, no Man living hath an Ounce weight, or Grain weight of the visible and gross Parts of that Body, which he had some Years past ● yea, as some think some few Months past; and if we divide the Age of a Man's Life, that liveth till he be 70 Years of age; suppose, that but once in seven Years he changeth all the visible and gross Parts of his Body (tho' it is generally acknowledged he changeth them much oftener) he hath by this account changed his whole visible Body ten times at least in this space of time● now let the Author tell me with which of these Bodies he shall rise at the Resurrection, and I shall answer him with the ●ike Reply to this present Objection; but if he say, there are certain Spiritual and invisible Parts, belonging to these visible and gross Bodies, that may or shall make up the entire Spiritual Body at the Resurrection, I can say the same in the present Case, and if he can tell me where these Invisible and Spiritual Parts of all these Bodies are lodged, in the mean time, whither they cleave to the Body, or are separate from the Body in that Interim; I can tell him to the same purpose in our present case, and can as easily answer all his Queries in the one case, as he can answer mine in the other. As for that Hypothesis of the Souls; attracting to its self the Particles of its former Body; by a 〈…〉 Virtue, it is only queried, and not 〈…〉, and therefore I am the less concerned to 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 I find no difficulty to defend it, against all that he ●●ith against it in a bare affirmation, without proof, viz. That the Soul hath no ●uch Magnetic Virtue or Cuality; but it is very probable it hath, because of its great ●nion with the Body, and Love to it, as we find b● experience in ourselves ● and the Souls being loath to be unclothed of the Body, as Paul saith, but only for the sure Hopes that it hath, to be clothed upon at the Resurrection of the Dead.  
And upon this Head he turns Inquirer by proposing about 7 or 8 Queries, that have no force in them, against the Hypothesis of the Revolutions, more than against the Doctrine of the Resurrection, generally believed by all good Christians, and professed by himself; and I could query as many, or rather more things, relating to the Resurrection itself, that would be as hard, or harder for him to answer with Satisfaction, but this is an improper and ineffectual way to dispute against an Opinion, to query, and to give no positive Reasons, whereby to oppose it. But that he may not only seem to query, he will rather give some shadow of Reasons, without all Substance, than none at all: One is, that after this fashion Men shall be brought into the World without any rather; for a Man begets not the Souls of his Children, and as for the Body, the Soul attracts and unites that to itself, o that the Man we call Father hath nothing to do in the Matter.  
Reply. Tho' a Man begets not the Souls of his Children, yet i● he will not turn Infidel, so as to contradict the express Testimony of Scripture the Souls of the Children come out of the Loins of their Fathers, Gen. 46.26. and are conveyed into human Bodies, by humane Generation; but to 〈◊〉 to all the curious and knotty Question, either about the Soul, as when, or how it comes into the Child's Body, it's probable, that as it sur●●sseth my Knowledge, either of Physics or Metaphysics, so it surpasseth his also, and perhaps of most Men. His pleasing himself to requently with his jocund Humour on this and other Heads, without any just Occasion given, whereby to render the Hypothesis of the Revolutions ridiculous, is more like to have a contrary Effect upon himself; as if at this rate, a Woman might be with Child without a Man, or that Abraham did not beget Isaac, which are but ridiculous Consequences of his own framing, having no ●ust Ground or Foundation from the Hypothesis i● self.  
Another of his wild and ridiculous Consequences is, that a Man may beget his own Grand father and Grandmother, also that Men may be their own Fathers, and thus the Genealogy of Adam shall be confounded, and there shall not be seven Generations or Persons, from Adam to Enoch, tho' the Scripture calleth them seven.  
Reply. All this wild and ridiculous way of reasoning proceedeth not from any Absurdity of the Hypothesis itself, but from his great Ignorance, as touching the several Parts, Strokes & Lineaments of it, as asserted by its chief Favourers, the Cabbalist Writer; therefore in order to help him to a better understanding of the Hypothesis, let him know, that they commonly teach, that every Child that is born into the World, beside the Soul or Souls that revolve in the Body of that Child hath a Soul, that is most properly the Soul of that Child, and which is commonly a new Soul, as formerly described; but these revolved Souls, suppose of the Child's Grand father, are but Inmates in comparison to that other Soul, that is the only proper Soul of the Child, and this maketh no confusion at all, to say, the Soul of the Grand father may lodge in, or impregnate the Body of the Grandchild, more than to say, the Soul of the Grandchild did formerly lodge in, or impregnate the Body of the Grandfather; as that Levi was in Abraham's Loins, which the Scripture expressly declares, yea, and paid tyths in Abraham. Besides, that it is not probable, nor allowed, that the Souls of these worthy Men, as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and many others, either needed, or had any Revolution in their Children. The only most seeming difficulty on this Head is, if divers Souls by Revolution, live together in one Body, with that called the new Soul, that is, most properly the peculiar Soul of that Body; if these Souls attain to a perfect Restitution in that Body whose shall that Body be at the Resurrection, or which of these Souls shall have it? But this may be some way answered by the Similitude of a Grain of Corn that is sown in the ●arth; how out of it divers Stalks and Ears of Corn, and many Grains arise, each Grain as full as that single Grain that was sown; for tho' the gross visible Body of a Man be but one, yet so much of Spiritual parts of Bodies may be lodged within that Shell or Husk of the gross visible Body, as may suffice to be Seeds, or Seminal Principles to as many Bodies, as there are Souls lodged within that one Body. And thus, as the Scripture teacheth Every Seed shall have its own Body; for thou sowest not the Body that shall be, but bare or naked Grain, etc. See 1 Cor. 15.  
The distinction betwixt Revolution and Impregnation, the Cabbalist, or Mystick Hebrew Authors hold to be this; that the Soul that revolveth into a Child's Body, cometh into that Body immediately after the Child is born into the World, so is not conveyed from the Father of the Child, but cometh ab extra, i. e. from without; but the Soul that doth impregnate another Body, cometh not into that Body when it is newly born, but some considerable time thereafter, as at the age of 20 or ●0 Years.  
But that besides the Soul, that is the most proper and peculiar Soul of the Child's Body, which the Child receiveth from the ●ather, not by Generation, but by Conveyance, ●even as Water is conveyed out of one Vessel into another another Soul may come into the same Body by Revolution or Impregnation, (which too they distinguish) they prove from Gen. 46.12. where it is said, that Er and Onan died in the Land of Canaan, and yet they are numbered to be of the 70 Souls that went down into Egypt; therefore they must needs have revolved into some of their Brethren, and that most probably ●harez and Zarah, who were born to Jud●● their Father, after they (viz. Er and Onan) died.  
That ●ew or none have delivered their thoughts about the Revolutions when they died, is no Argument against it, tho' he make it one; good Men do not revolve commonly, and what bad Men say, is little to be minded, tho' Balaan seemed to Prophesy of his Revolution in these words, that may be read Prophetically in the future; I shall die the Death of the Righteous, and my last end shall be like his, and yet his Death was not such as to that time of Life; as also his Prophecy that he should see Christ, but not near, which Origen takes to be spoke Prophetically; but how could this be true, if he did not revolve in one of them. See Origen, Hom. 15. in num. Ipse velut de seipso Prophetans dicit, moriatur Amma mea inter Animas justorum, & fiat semen meum sicut semen justorum: In English thus: he (to wit Balaam) as prophesying of himself, saith, Let my Soul die among the Souls of the Righteous, and let my Seed be as the Seed of the Righteous; so the Septuagint, as to this latter part of the Verse, Numb. 23.10. but in the former part he seems expressly to hold forth the Metempsychosis, or Transanimation, according to the Septuagint Version, the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i e. Let my Soul die in the Souls of the Righteous; and that the wise Men, or Magis, of the East, who come to worship the Child Jesus, had their Descent from him, and their Knowledge or Institution; he saith expressly, Hom. 14. in num. ●●x illo denique fertur Majorum genus, & in●s●tutio in partibus Orientis vigere— & ideo quando Natus est Jesus, agnoverunt stellam, & intellexerunt adi●●●●i prophetiam magis quam populus Is●ael: In English thus; Of him the Kindred of Magi is said to have come, and their Institution or Learning to have grown in the Eastern parts,— and therefore when Jesus was born they knew the Star, (viz. that he prophesied of Numb. 24.17.) and understood that the Prophecy was fulfilled more than the Pe●● of Israel.  
These words in Psal. 78.39. God remember that we are but Flesh and Wind, that passeth an●● and cometh not again; say nothing against the Revolutions, more than against the Resurrection for it is granted, the gross and visible Body 〈◊〉 Flesh cometh not again. as no more is it raise● out of the Grave in that gross Capacity, as i●● deed no more could that Soul come again by any Power of its own; but as it is sent, or commanded according to Psal. 90. Thou turnest M●● to Destruction, and again thou sayest, return 〈◊〉 Sons of Men: And to his Instances of dive● Holy Men, that signified they had no Expectation to live again on Earth in a visible and gr●● Body, it is granted; for the Hypothesis of th● Revolutions doth not assert, that the Saints li●● again until the Resurrection of the Dead, wh●● they shall be raised, to live in Spiritual Bodies 〈◊〉 but the Revolution is of such as are not Saints● in order to their becoming Saints. And as t● that in Job 7. v. 9, 10. he that goeth down to t●● Grave, cometh up no more, it is granted; th● gross and visible Body cometh up no more, neither to revolve, nor to be raised from the Dead● which is all that place proveth.  
As to his sensible demonstration, it is grounded on a false Foundation, which is his own gro● mistake in several Particulars; one is, that th● Soul undergoes 12 Revolutions in the space of ●000 Years, and that consequently odd Months and Days, which mistake being noted above, I need say no more to it here; but if the Soul's absence be not above one Year from the Body, as in some cases it may happen, as hath been said above, it gives his sensible Demonstration no strength: His other mistake is, that the Soul by its Magnetic Virtue (by this Hypothesis) draws to it the gross & visible Particles of the gross & visible Body of Flesh and Bones, but supposing a Magnetic Virtue, it is not supposed, that it draws the gross and visible Parts or Particles of it, leaving the gross Body of Skin and Bones, or dried Flesh behind, so that his Instance of embalmed Bodies, and Popish Relics of dead Men's Bones, serve nothing his turn.  
That place of Scripture, cited by him, Heb. 9.27. To disprove the Hypothesis of the Revolutions, will not serve his turn; for the most it proveth is, that all Men die once, but it saith not that Men never died, or shall die more but once; for some that were raised from the Dead, died twice, as is generally confessed, but the time that Christ suffered for Men's Sins, being the fullness of time, many were then in their last Revolution, and so were to die yet once, and but once. See Query 45. in the Treatise of 200 Queries.  
His last Reason, that this Doctrine, if believed, would lead Men into Security, is as invalid as any of the former, as if they cannot remember that they lived before, they must conclude they have 11 times of Life yet behind; but I deny his Consequence. That it is reported of Pythagorus, that he did remember that he had formerly lived, this doth not make his Reason good; for first, every Report is not true; secondly; if the Report be true, the Case must be singular, or extraordinary in him. But that as his last Strength, he saith, A Man is sure that it is eleven to one; but that he shall have another Revolution, which is odds enough on the Sinner'● side: I answer, he is not sure; but rather it is eleven to one that he shall not have another Revolution▪ but suppose he could be sure to have another, I say, that Surety hath no more direct Tendency to lead him into a sinful Security, than Hezekiah his being sure that God would add 15 Years to his Life, could lead him into a sinful Security; for we ought to distinguish betwixt the right use of a thing, and the abuse of it, or in other terms, betwixt Causa per se, and causa per accidens; a direct, or indirect, and accidental Cause.  
That he blames the Enquirer for his defect of Modesty, because, according to him, if they will not answer him, he concludes it is because they are ignorant and unable; but if they will answer him, than he will charge them with Atheism: I think the Author deserves rather to be blamed, for his unfair representing him; for the Enquirer doth not simply charge them with Atheism, for answering fairly, but for exclaiming against it, and calling it damnable Doctrine. Again, the Enquirer is not so uncharitable as to judge that every Man is an Atheist, that doth not believe the Doctrine of the Revolutions, only he declareth freely, (without any Immodesty) what the Logical Consequence of that Doctrine is, that denieth the Return, or Revolution of Souls, which is to deny divers of the Glorious Attributes of God, and what is that but to deny God himself, seeing these Glorious Attributed of God are his essential Perfections, as to be Merciful, Gracious, Long-suffering, abundant in Goodness and Truth, abundantly Pardoning; but that God should eternally damn many Thousands, and 10000s of Men to Hell-fire, who never had more time to repent in, or amend their Life, but a few years; as suppose to some 70 or 80, to many more, not 40, and to very many, not 20 yea not 10, and some that die in Infancy, that to be sure are not generally, or universally sanctified, and therefore are not fitted for Heaven, and to give them no other time of Life, seemeth to the Enquirer a plain denial of these most Glorious Attributes of God, his being so abundantly Merciful, Gracious, and Long-suffering, and consequently by a Logical Inference, a plain denial of the true God; but yet it is not every thing that may be made a Logical Inference against a Man's Opinion, that aught to conclude him practically as bad as the Opinion itself is: And such is the present Case with the Inquirer, who doth charitably believe that many pious and good Men do not believe the Doctrine of the Revolution of Humane Souls, and so are no guilty of Atheism, properly and directly, only he tells them what their denial of such a Doctrine may Logically infer, and what is the tendency of it, I am sure much more to Atheism, than the believing the Doctrine of the Return of Souls, as duly represented, leads to careless Living, or sinful Security, which is a sort of practical Atheism; and seeing this Author thinks not himself chargeable with Immodesty, for telling the Inquirer that his Opinion leads to careless Living, that is a sort of Practical Atheism, no more doth the Inquirer think himself chargeable with Immodesty, for plainly telling him that his contrary Opinion leads consequentially to that, which may be called Atheism.  
Thus I sufficiently with great briefness and plainess answered (as I hope every Impartial and Intelligent Reader will perceive) to every thing that seemed Material in this Author's Treatise against this harmless Opinion, at which he seemed so much prejudiced, and I think he will say, I have Treated him gently, being loath to exasperate him, considering (what he professeth himself to be) that he is young, and hath not had much Reading or Experience, especially in this sort of Mystic Learning, and is not acquainted with the several necessary parts of the Hypothesis, that serve to make it duly intelligible, in order, either to its Refutation or Confirmation: But if 〈◊〉 be desirous to know further concerning the Hypothesis itself, and the parts, and other Circumstantial things to it, I commend to his reading. Read Isaac Loriensis his Latin Treatise, translated out of Hebr. in Cabbala de nudata. Tom. 2. de Revolutionibus Animarum, bound up with other Treatises, Also H●●●ont's Agreement of the Macrocosm and Microcosm, and his 〈◊〉 Treatise of the Divine Attributes, and the Book, lately printe● at London, called Seder Olam; not that I would have him take for truth all that he reads in these Books, but let him read, and well consider, and then judge. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
FINIS.