359 
pertained to it so originally as to have come forth in it and of it, and not 
ab extra. 
Such, unquestionably, is the use of the word, as elicited by any inductive 
inquiry ; so that by “ Nature ” we mean “ that constitution of any beings 
which they have in themselves originally, and as distinguished,” (says 
Cuvier), “ from that which may be engrafted on them artificially.” 
By this constitution they are distinguished from other beings who have 
a different “ Nature.” 
When the word “ Nature ” is used scientifically, we may even recognize 
various “ Natures ” in the same object — various distinctions, i.e., allying 
them with various other beings ; — as when we speak of “ Human Nature,” 
“Animal Nature,” “intelligent” or “ non-intelligent Natures,” and the 
like. These distinctions may be beyond precise definition, but they are 
fully felt and recognized, as will readily be seen. 
You observe a child of undeveloped or injured powers. Do you deny 
that it has human “Nature”? Surely not. Is it blind? Is it muti- 
lated? Is it deaf ? Is it dumb? Is it even defective in intellect? It 
may be so. But do you refuse to say that it is our human kin ? Has it 
not still “ Human Nature ” ? Well, then, the perfection of any individual, 
or the possession of certain gifts and faculties, or capacities, would not be 
included in the “ Nature,” though possibly necessary to the development, 
or at times to the perfection of Nature. 
There is also a still more subtle use of the term “ Nature,” implying an 
ideal. 
A man who has intense sympathy with his fellow-man, or with the 
highest efforts of the mind or skill of others, is contrasted at times with 
the unsympathetic and dull. They both have “human Nature,” but 
that “ Nature ” is elevated towards perfection in the one and is depressed 
in the other, so much so at times that it absolutely degenerates. Yet, 
probably, the one cannot really rise above, so as to cease to be, man, nor 
the other sink below, so as entirely to lose human Nature in animal 
degradation. 
The common, the scientific, and the philosophical uses of the term 
“Nature” thus are fundamentally the same; and the mind passes from 
thq one to the other without any strain. Qualities, capacities, potentiality, 
are not words that are interchangeable with the term “ Nature,” which 
describes the sort of being we speak of, and marks us off so far, at least 
ideally, from other sorts. 
Nor do we confound “Nature” with “Individuality,” nor with Personality. 
“Human Nature” is that by virtue of which we are constituted Human ; 
“ animal Nature ” is that by which we are animal. Such “ Nature ” in 
either case links us immediately with others who are in the same order. 
“ Animal Nature” is distinguished, again, into many Individualities, each 
a unit, bearing that common “ Nature.” “ Human Nature ” is distinguished 
into many Personalities, each defined in its own Consciousness. Man treats 
