Bishop Cumberland founds the law of God, as revealed in the Scriptures, upon the general law of nature. He does not attempt to found the laws of nature upon the Bible. “We believe,” he says, “in the truth of Scripture, because it promotes and illustrates the fundamental laws of nature in the government of the world.” Then does the Bishop mean here that the Bible is not the WORD nor the WILL of God, but the exposition of the WORD and the record of the WILL, so far as either could be rendered communicable to human comprehension through the medium of human language and intelligence? There is a striking passage in Bunsen’s Hippolytus, which may be considered with reference to this opinion of the Bishop. He (Bunsen) says, that “what relates the history of ‘the word of God’ in his humanity, and in this world, and what records its teachings, and warnings, and promises (that is, the Bible?) was mistaken for ‘the word of God’ itself, in its proper sense.” Does he mean that we deem erroneously the collection of writings we call the Bible to be “the word of God;” whereas, in fact, it is “the history, the record of the word of God?” that is, of all that God has spoken to man—in various revelations—through human life—by human deeds?—because this is surely a most important and momentous distinction. 72. According to Bishop Cumberland, _benevolence_, in its large sense,—that is, a regard for all GOOD, universal and particular,—is the primary law of nature; and _justice_ is one form, and a secondary form, of this law: a moral virtue, not a law of nature,—if I understand his meaning rightly. Then which would he place _highest_, the law of nature or the moral law? If you place them in contradistinction, then are we to conclude that the law of nature _precedes_ the moral law, but that the moral law _supersedes_ the law of nature? Yet no law of nature (as I understand the word) _can_ be superseded, though the moral law may be based upon it, and in that sense may be _above_ it. 73. In this following passage the Bishop seems to have anticipated what in more modern times has been called the “_greatest happiness principle_.” He says:— “The good of all rational beings is a complex whole, being nothing but the aggregate of good enjoyed by each.” “We can only act in our proper spheres, labouring to do good, but this labour will be fruitless, or rather mischievous, if we do not keep in mind the higher gradations which terminate in universal benevolence. Thus, no man must seek his own pleasure or advantage otherwise than as his family permits; or provide for his family to the detriment of his country; or promote the good of his country at the expense of mankind; or serve mankind, if it were possible, without regard to the majesty of God.” 74.