Before proceeding further with the current of theological opinion, let me pause for a moment to mention the names of men who, in the service of Biblical learning, may perhaps be justly classed with the Divines now under review. Lightfoot, the Erastian, published, between 1644 and 1664, a Harmony of the Gospels, a Commentary upon the Acts, and Notes upon St. Paul’s Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians, besides _Horæ Hebraicæ, et Talmudicæ_, and other Exercitations of a similar kind. All his books exhibit Rabbinical lore applied to the elucidation of the Holy Scriptures; and he is not only the first of our English Divines to break up new ground decidedly and extensively in this field, but he actually tills the soil to such a degree, that none of his successors in the same path of industry are equal to this master-workman. Besides his own volumes, he has contributed to the interests of Biblical scholarship, by largely assisting Walton in his Polyglott, and Poole in his Synopsis. Simon Patrick--numbered by Burnet among the Latitudinarians--wrote Commentaries upon the Old Testament, as far as the Book of Esther,--these were published between the years 1694 and 1705,--but at an earlier date, between 1678 and 1681, he wrote Paraphrases of Job and the Psalms, of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon. He united reverence with learning, and brevity with accuracy; and avoiding the method of citing a number of opinions, which only perplex the reader, he gives his own in a style which is clear, and with arguments which are forcible.[483] There is another person entitled to honourable mention, which perhaps may be as fittingly introduced here as anywhere: for, though he cannot be identified with the Latitudinarian school, neither can he in any proper sense be pronounced either Anglican or Puritan. Dr. James Ussher occupies a niche of his own in the temple of theological literature. His broad sympathies seem to fix his place at least near to those scholars who have just been described. As to time, his publications take their place between the beginning of the works of Lightfoot and the beginning of the works of Patrick. Ussher differed from them both. He was far superior to the last in learning; but I should infer, from what is said of him, that in some respects--certainly in the Rabbinical department of study--he was inferior to Lightfoot as a Biblical critic. In the learning which relates to sacred chronology he had no rival. [Sidenote: CAMBRIDGE.--SCIENCE.]