I. A Considering Person may well be tempted to suspect, that Men have generally had but imperfect and confused Notions concerning Nature; if he but observes, that they apply that Name to several things, and those too such, as have some of them very little dependance on, or connexion with, such others. And I remember that in Aristotle’s Metaphysicks, I met with a whole Chapter expresly written, to enumerate the various Acceptions of the Greek word, φύσις, commonly render’d Nature; of which, if I mistake not, he there reckons up six. In English also we have not fewer, but rather more numerous significations of that Term. For sometimes we use the word Nature, for that Author of Nature, whom the School-men, harshly enough, call Natura Naturans; as when ‘tis said, that Nature hath made Man partly Corporeal, and partly Immaterial. Sometimes we mean by the Nature of a thing, the Essence, or that which the School-men scruple not to call the Quiddity of a thing, namely, the Attribute or Attributes, on whose score it is, what it is; whether the thing be corporeal or not; as, when we attempt to define the Nature of an Angle, or of a Triangle, or of a Fluid Body as such. Sometimes we confound that which a Man has by Nature, with what accrues to him by Birth; as, when we say, that such a Man is noble by Nature, or such a Child naturally forward, or sickly, or frightful. Sometimes we take Nature for an Internal Principle of Motion; as, when we say, that a Stone let fall in the Air, is by Nature carried towards the Centre of the Earth; and, on the contrary, that Fire or Flame does Naturally move upwards towards Heaven.
Sometimes we understand by Nature, the Establish’d course of things, as, when we say, that Nature makes the Night succeed the Day: Nature hath made Respiration necessary to the Life of Men.
Sometimes we take Nature for an Aggregate of Powers belonging to a Body, especially a Living one; as, when Physicians say, that Nature is strong, or weak, or spent; or that in such or such Diseases, Nature left to her self, will do the Cure. Sometimes we take Nature for the Universe, or System of the Corporeal works of God; as, when ‘tis said of a Phoenix, or a Chimera, that there is no such thing in Nature, (i. e.) in the World. And sometimes too, and that most commonly, we would express by the Word Nature, a Semi-deity, or other strange kind of Being, such as this Discourse examines the Notion of. And besides these more Absolute Acceptions, if I may so call them, of the word Nature; it has divers others (more Relative) as Nature is wont to be set in Opposition or Contradistinction to other things; as, when we say of a Stone when it falls downwards, that it does it by a Natural motion; but that if it be thrown upwards, its motion that way is violent. So Chymists distinguish Vitriol into Natural and Fictitious, or made by Art, (i. e.) by the Intervention of Human Power or Skill; so ‘tis said, that water kept suspended in a sucking Pump, is not in its natural place, as that is, which is Stagnant in the Well. We say also, that Wicked Men are still in the state of Nature; but the Regenerate, in a state of Grace: That Cures wrought by Medicines, are Natural Operations; but the miraculous ones, wrought by Christ and his Apostles, were Supernatural. Nor are these the only Forms of Speech, that a more diligent Collector, than I think it necessary I should here be, might instance in, to manifest the Ambiguity of the word Nature, by the many and various things ‘tis applied to signifie; tho’ some of those already mentioned, should be judged too near to be co-incident. Among Latin Writers I found the acceptions of the word Nature to be so many, that I remember, one Author reckons up no less than fourteen or fifteen. From all which ‘tis not difficult to gather, how easie ‘tis for the generality of Men, without excepting those that write of Natural Things, to impose upon others and themselves, in the use of a word so apt to be mis-imploy’d.
On this occasion I can scarce forbear to tell you, that I have often look’d upon it as an unhappy thing, and prejudicial both to Philosophy and Physick; that the word Nature hath been so frequently, and yet so unskilfully imploy’d, both in Books and in Discourse, by all sorts of Men, Learned and Illiterate. For the very great Ambiguity of this term, and the promiscuous use Men are wont to make of it, without sufficiently attending to its different Significations, makes many of the Expressions wherein they imploy it, (and think they do it well and truly) to be either not intelligible, or not proper, or not true: Which Observation, tho’ it be not heeded, may, with the help of a little attention, be easily verified; especially because the Term Nature is so often used, that you shall scarce meet with any Man, who, if he have occasion to discourse any thing long of either Natural or Medicinal Subjects, would not find himself at a great loss, if he were prohibited the use of the word Nature, and of those Phrases whereof it makes the principal part. And I confess I could heartily wish, that Philosophers, and other Learned Men (whom the rest in time would follow) would by common (tho’ perhaps Tacite) consent, introduce some more Significant, and less ambiguous Terms and Expressions in the room of the too licenciously abused word Nature, and the Forms of Speech that depend on it. Or would, at least, decline the use of it, as much as conveniently they can; and where they think they must imploy it, would· add a word or two, to declare in what clear and determinate sense they use it. For without somewhat of this kind be done, Men will very hardly avoid being led into divers mistakes, both of things, and of one another; & such wranglings about Words and Names, will be (if not continually multiplied) still kept on foot, as are wont to be manag’d with much heat, tho’ little use, and no necessity.