358 
The possessor of Revealed Truth may take no lower ground 
than— “we know.” It may be expressed in better words than 
ours : — “ That which may be known of God (to yvoocrrov) 
plain in men’s very selves ( <pavspov av avrolg). God made it plain. 
His unseen things (aopara), His Potentiality and Deity,” (the 
prae-phenomenal), “are so seen of the mind as to leave men 
without excuse if, with knowledge so possessed, they become 
weakly entangled by their arguments {Sia\oyiaiuoig), and calling 
themselves philosophers lose their common understanding in total 
darkness.” (Rom. i. 19-23.) — It is a solemn picture drawn by an 
apostle’s hand. 
Note* A (§ 5, prase.) 
As to the Meaning of the terms “ Nature,” “ Natural,” &c., as ascertained 
by “ Socratic Inquiry .” (See Mill, pp. 3, 4.) 
Ip we examine the common use of the word “Nature,” and its compounds 
and correlatives, we can have no difficulty in arriving at its meaning ; 
for the meaning of any word is that which men mean by it ; not simply 
its etymological origin, though that is of literary interest. 
In ordinary speech, we describe the “Nature” of a thing by selecting 
some distinctive feature which it has either in itself, or in common with 
other things which are therefore said to be of like “ Nature.” Every 
one would understand us supposing we said, “ it is the Nature of certain 
vegetables to grow, if planted in the earth.” We should not mean that 
that was a full account of them, but a distinction common to a class to 
which they belonged. Again, if we said, “it is the Nature of certain 
beings that they have power of locomotion ” ; and of others that “ they 
remain on the same spot ” ; or, once more, if we spoke of it as “ the 
Nature of some creatures to know their young,” or “to select their proper 
food,” and of others, (as men), “ to be conscious of themselves, or know 
themselves,” we should be very well understood. In all these instances 
the word “ Nature” belongs not to one object exclusively, but to many. 
If any particular object stood apart from all others in some determining 
characteristic, we might describe that characteristic as its “ Nature,” in 
order to explain its peculiarity in that respect ; but even in so exceptional 
a case we should probably recognize that there was, in other respects, a 
common “Nature” associating that object with others, and we should 
not usually call any peculiarity the “ Nature ” of an object, unless it 
* This and the following Notes are taken from the author’s volume 
“ The Church of all Ages,” {Hayes), in which also will be found the 
substance of the Reply to Mill, with other discussions. 
