34 s soul necessarily livings

tion, which is a known property of the foul,should be the internal unknown constitutionof the soul, is a contradiction; and provingthe contrary, is proving what was never de-nied. But this is not the genuine acceptationpf the word ejfence. See the note(y)N° 2 2.)A late Author hath rightly observed, that esfence is explained by the chief and radical pro-perty of a thing , or all the properties of tt‘'Hence the chief and radical property is theessence of any thing in idea, though the thingshould not exist, nor have any internal n n 'known constitution. Esettee (as the fame W sl 'ter remarks) is very different from existencethe essence or nature of things is invariablyand their existence only contingent. Frontthis we may fee the fallacy of Mr. Locke 6argument : he makes eflence the internal un-known constitution of things: and becaU^it is contradictory that thought should bethe essence of the foul in this fense, he inst 1 " 3it is not of the essence of the foul in the °fther sense, or so as to be inseparable from lt-This is as if I should fay, A circle is a fig° secontained under four equal sides, makingright angles; but there is no point within th? s

figure, from which all the lines drawn to t "

■ " ' " - ■ sides