a universal, impartial _nature_.” Page 196: “Is the most signal proof of a higher _nature_ which can be given.” _Idem_: “It is a sovereignty worth more than that over outward _nature_.” _Idem_: “Its great end is to give liberty and energy to our _nature_.” Page 198: “Our moral, intellectual, immortal _nature_ we cannot remember too much.” Page 200: “The moral _nature_ of religion.” Page 202: “We even think that our love of _nature_.” _Idem_: “For the harmonies of _nature_ are only his wisdom made visible.” Page 203: “That progress in truth is the path of _nature_.” Page 211: “It has the liberality and munificence of _nature_, which not only produces the necessary root and grain, but pours forth fruits and flowers. It has the variety and bold contrasts of _nature_.” _Idem_: “The beautiful and the superficial seem to be _naturally_ conjoined.” Page 212: “And by a law of his _nature_.” Page 213: “These gloomy and appalling features of our _nature_.” Page 215: “These conflicts between the passions and the moral _nature_.” * * * * * We regret that so eminent and accurate a scholar, and so influential a man, should have fallen into such an indefinite and confused use of any portion of our language. If we mistake not, it will require more than usual reflection for the mind to determine what idea is presented by its use in the most of these instances. We know that some use this word so vaguely, that if required to explain the idea they wished to convey by it, they would be unable to do so. But there are those from whom we expect a better use of language. Many English readers pass over such sentences without stopping to think what are the distinct ideas of the writer. There are, in our language, a few words used in our conversational dialect, as if especially intended for the speaker’s aid when he only had a confused idea, or perhaps none at all, of what he designed to say; and we extremely regret that words, to us of so important meaning, as _nature_ and _conscience_, should be found among that class. The teacher of theology and morals should surely be careful not to lead his pupils into error. Might not the unskilled inquirer infer that _nature_ was a substantive existence, taking rank somewhere between man and the Deity? And what would be his notion, derived from such use of the term, of its offices, of its influence on, and man’s relation with it? What is our notion as to the definite idea these passages convey?