Genesis-Commentary-1-to-9-Synopsis-Matthew-Poole-Trans-Steven-Dilday

The Works

of the

Reverend Matthew Poole



The

Exegetical Labors

of the

Reverend Matthew Poole

Translated by the Rev. Steven Dilday

Volume 1: Genesis 1-9

Containing:
I. A Synopsis of Interpreters, Both Critical and

Otherwise, of the Sacred Scripture
II. Annotations upon the Holy Bible

Culpeper, Virginia
Master Poole Publishing

2007

Master Poole Publishing
110 Laurel Street

Culpeper, VA 22701

Copyright © 2007

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments ......................................................... 5
Directions for Use ......................................................... 7
I. Prefatory Matter .....................................................11

A Royal Copyright ..................................................13
The Author’s Dedication...........................................15
Preface to the Synopsis: Genesis-Esther ........................17
Preface to the Annotations: Genesis-Isaiah.....................51
II. Commentary on Genesis ...........................................65
The Argument of the Book of Genesis...........................67
Chapter 1 .............................................................69
Chapter 2 ........................................................... 119
Chapter 3 ........................................................... 175
Chapter 4 ........................................................... 235
Chapter 5 ........................................................... 287
Chapter 6 ........................................................... 313
Chapter 7 ........................................................... 359
Chapter 8 ........................................................... 379
Chapter 9 ........................................................... 401

4

III. Index ................................................................ 435

Acknowledgments

First, I would like to thank Andrew Myers. His labors in proofreading
and prowess in researching all things obscure have greatly improved this work.

Also, many thanks to Whitefield Theological Seminary and Dr.
Kenneth Talbot for taking on this unusual doctoral project. It is hoped that
these volumes will be a credit to the Seminary.



Directions for Use

Each of the volumes in this series, The Exegetical Labors of the
Reverend Matthew Poole is actually composed of two separate works: A
Synopsis of Interpreters, Both Critical and Otherwise, of the Sacred Scriptures
(known by its Latin title, Synopsis Criticorum, the translated text of which is
printed in this regular type) and Annotations upon the Holy Bible (the text of
which is printed in bold type). In the Synopsis, written primarily for students,
ministers, and scholars, Poole presents something of a verse-by-verse history of
interpretation, setting forth the most important interpreters and interpretative
positions. The Annotations, on the other hand, are written for the use of the
common man, giving a summary of the most important interpretive issues and
Poole’s own, most mature (being written in the years immediately prior to his
death), judgment. In these volumes, the Annotations have been interspliced
into the translation of the Synopsis, creating an omnibus of Poole’s exegetical
efforts.

It may already be apparent from this brief description of these volumes
that they are intended for study; they are certainly not a light read. So that
every reader, from the unlearned to the scholar, might get the most profit from
these volumes, these directions are proffered:

1. Read and study the prefatory material, especially the “Preface to the
Synopsis: Genesis-Esther.”

In the “Preface to the Synopsis: Genesis-Esther,” the reader is
introduced to the interpreters, writing on these Books of the Bible, who, in
Poole’s judgment, are of the greatest significance. Because the Synopsis is
primarily about the history of interpretation, an acquaintance with the
interpreters is of the utmost importance. The translator has provided
additional information about these men in the footnotes to aid the reader. Paul
taught the Ephesian Christians that the ascended Lord Jesus provides teachers
for the edification of His Church in all ages;1 this is a synopsis of their teaching
and testimony, a thing of surpassing value.

2. Note that a brief summary of each book and an outline of each
chapter has been provided.2

1 Ephesians 4:11-13.
2 Poole composed the book outlines from Genesis to Isaiah, but the chapter outlines
were not added until the third edition of the Annotations, 1696, by Samuel Clarke and

8

This will help the reader get and keep the entire context in view as he
studies particular verses.

3. Study the cross-references.

The Authorized Version of the text has been provided at the beginning
of each verse. In the Annotations, Poole provided a great many cross-
references in the printing of the verse itself.1 These should not be neglected;
they are of great value in gaining an understanding of the verse being studied,
and it will be found that the verse being studied has implications for the right
interpretation of other texts.2 Furthermore, the reader will find the verses,
referenced in the Synopsis portion for the illustration of grammatical principles,
to be of great help and use. When the reason for the citation of a particular
verse is not clear in English, the translator has provided annotations in the
footnotes to aid understanding.

4. Begin the study of the commentary portion under each verse with
the Annotations portion (printed in bold).

Remember that the Annotations were written for the common man,
and in them Poole summarizes and gives his most mature evaluation of the most
important matters. Reading the Annotations portion will frequently shed much
light upon the mass of raw exegetical material in the Synopsis portion.

5. Note that Poole often presents a wide variety of interpretive
positions in a short space.

Edward Veale. Samuel Clarke (1626-1701), one of the ejected ministers under the
Act of Uniformity, was well-qualified for this editorial work, having composed his
own The Old and New Testament, with Annotations and Parallel Scriptures (1690)
and A Survey of the Bible; or, an Analytical Account of the Holy Scriptures,
Containing the Division of Every Book and Chapter, thereby Shewing the Frame and
Contexture of the Whole (1693). Edward Veale was one of the divines called upon to
complete Poole’s Annotations, writing the portions on Ephesians, James, 1 and 2
Peter, and Jude. He will be discussed at greater length in conjunction with those
portions.
1 Samuel Clarke and Edward Veale appear to be responsible for supplemental cross-
references, added to Poole’s own. All of the cross-references have been provided in
this text.
2 Westminster Confession of Faith 1:9: “The infallible rule of interpretation of
Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true
and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one) it must be searched
and known by other places that speak more clearly.”

9

In the Synopsis portion, contradictory positions can be presented
without any transition. The intepreters who held a certain view are usually
given in parentheses after the presentation of the interpretive position, and this
is frequently all that the reader is given with respect to a transition from one
position to another.

6. Be patient and persevere.
Solomon the Wise teaches in the Proverbs that in some things
knowledge and wisdom come only with effort,1 and penetrating beyond a
superficial understanding of the Scriptures will require hard work; but let the
Christian give himself to this labor in the assurance of faith, that Jesus Christ is
speaking to him through the Word,2 and that in this study he will taste of the
Lord that He is good.3

1 Proverbs 2:1-5.
2 1 Peter 1:11.
3 1 Peter 2:3.



Prefatory Matter



A Royal Copyright

Charles II, by the grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and
Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc., to all and everyone about to peruse this
present book: Greetings. Whereas Matthew Poole, Master of Arts, being now
about to bring forth into the light a certain work, entitled A Synopsis of
Interpreters, Both Critical and Otherwise, of Sacred Scripture, a work
composed by means of his great labor and diligence and approved by a great
many of the most learned men from Our Clergy, approved as most particularly
useful to all those devoted to the Sacred Texts, lest so excellent a work, begun
and about to come forth at a cost by no means ordinary, should turn to his own
loss and detriment, if others, regardless of his will, should print or copy this
work, has most humbly petitioned Us, that We might by Our Royal
Prerogative render a decision concerning his industry and expenses: We in
fact, for the affection by which We are eager to embrace and to forward
literature and the literary interest (especially that which is dedicated to God),
have thought it fit to smile upon his just request; furthermore, We accordingly
prohibit and wish to be careful that none of Our subjects, neither printer,
bookseller, nor any other, dare to forge with types or to sell otherwise printed,
in whole or in part, this work, anticipated within our estates and realms, for
the period of fourteen years to be reckoned from the first day of publication,
with the before mentioned Matthew Poole, or his heirs, executors,
administrators, or assignees, being unknowing or unwilling. He who does
otherwise will subsequently, and by no means impudently, bear the contempt
of Our Royal Authority: he will be punished with the confiscation of the
books, forged or imported, existing in defiance of the tenor of this law, with
one half of them to be rendered to Our Treasury, the other to be divided to the
same Matthew Poole, or his heirs or commissioners, to make good the loss.
These were granted in Our Palace of Whitehall,1 the fourteenth day of
October, in the year of our Lord 1667, in the ninetieth month of Our Reign.

According to the mandate of the
Sacred, Royal Majesty,

William Morice.2

1 From 1530 to 1698, the Palace of Whitehall was the principal dwelling for the
English kings while residing in London.
2 Sir William Morice of Werrington was a member of the Privy Council of Charles II.



The Author’s Dedication

To the Most Serene and August Charles II,
by the grace of God, King of Great Britain,
France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc.

Most Serene King,
I have undertaken with discrimination to collect commentaries upon

the Sacred Text, commentaries widely scattered in the writings of many
illustrious authors, and to bring them together into modest volumes. For this
undertaking, I most humbly call upon Your Majesty as Patron. Indeed, I labor
to bring forth a work, which, with respect to the obscurity of the author, is
insubstantial, but, with respect to the subject matter, is most weighty and
suitable to be dedicated to a king, but especially to King Charles. The
interpretation of the very Word of God, the God by Whom kings reign, is
certainly worthy of a king: and especially of that King, in whose life we see
renewed the many wonders of which we read in the Word. The divine will is
displayed to the human race by means of a twofold system: by means of
Providence, through which He governs all things; and by means of the
Scriptures, through which He teaches men. Your Majesty stood forth as a most
clear example of heavenly Providence: You are the Divine Custodian of the
Sacred Books. May the most excellent and great God cause it to be that, by
what favor of Providence you have begun to reign, by the same You might
reign most lastingly; and that that Sacred Book, defended and kept in the land
under the auspices of Your Crown, might requite to you an everlasting crown,
but at a later time, in heaven.

This is the most earnest prayer of
Your Majesty’s most humble and
most indebted subject and servant,

Matthew Poole.



Preface to the Synopsis: Genesis-Esther

All men carry a sense of religion deeply etched in their minds, even
those who either struggle, kad du/namin, as far as they are able, to shake it off,
or represent themselves as having shaken it off. Various kinds of religions are
in the world, of which most are vainer than vanity itself. The Christian religion
alone merits the name of religion; only this one uncovers fully and plainly both
the diseases and the miseries of human nature, and only this one makes known,
and that with surpassing beauty, the genuine remedy of both. This religion,
however, is to be sought, not out of the turbid pond of the philosophers, but
out of the Divine Oracles, even out of the purest fountain of Sacred Scripture.
To discuss extensively the surpassing excellence of the Sacred Scripture in this
place, what would it be but to carry on the matter endlessly? Let that one
saying of our Savior (and a more august saying is scarcely able to be contrived)
be sufficient for all that have not completely cast off both Christianity and
humanity, that, in searching the Sacred Scripture, we rightly believe that we
are going to find that eternal and most blessed life.1 He who despises the
Scripture is worthy to perish in eternal death; he who rightly esteems the
Scripture for its magnificence is not able long to prefer all the treasures of this
exceedingly vain world above the Sacred Books. However, as that Divine Book
rests, as it were, locked up in an ark of languages, languages not commonly
known, it abounds as well in difficulties, difficulties neither few nor small;
neither is it to be denied that there are many obscurities and ambiguities,
whether in the words or in the sense, which men, either muddled and twisted
in mind or corrupted in manners, readily pervert into opinions not so very
false, but still ruinous. Nothing can be more desirable to all those, to whom
everlasting salvation is made dear to the heart, than to have this Book opened,
which remains sealed to the majority of mortals, whether through ignorance or
their own sloth, and to find a reliable guide or interpreter, who might open to
souls, souls wandering through wastelands of errors, the true and safe path
pointed out in the Sacred Volumes. Moreover, knowledge of the Sacred
Scriptures, as it is most useful, and in a certain measure necessary, to all
Christians, so also, and especially, to theologians and ministers of the Church;
in whom ignorance of the Scriptures is a most grave sin, and certainly
scandalous; out of which, as out of a fountain, almost all fantasies and plagues,
either of opinions or of traditions, rushed forth, all which undermined and
ruined the present state of both the Church and the ministry. This is certainly
one origin of errors, and perhaps the principal origin, at least in men that are

1 John 5:39.

18

not malignant, for most true overseers of souls would not find it so difficult to
know the entirety of the Sacred Books that they, being content to learn some
bits of them (insofar as the course of studies and sermons requires), would
gladly pass over the remainders ungreeted, as if God would have written
something which would not need to be understood, or as if there might be a
class of men whom He might have burdened to a greater degree, first to
understand, then to explain, the Sacred, and indeed the whole, Scripture (as
much as it is possible, through the weakness of human ability and the
preoccupations of its function), than those whom the Divine Majesty has
established as interpreters of His will. And if it is true (which is indeed most
true) that the Sacred Text is the best interpreter of itself, and that the
comparison of passages is preeminently useful in the mutual understanding of
them, it is inevitable that they would slip into many errors, who, with that
most fair framework of Scripture neglected, examine some parts of it
exclusively, parts torn from the remainder. For this reason, many are the
parora/mata/errors, unto the reproach of the ministry and the ruin of
Christian people, of certain preachers in the exercise of their duty: sacred
phrases distorted into an alien sense and doctrines faithlessly constructed by
them, the fantasies of men peddled instead of the divine oracles to the
conscience of the hearers, conscience bogged down by unnecessary scruples, or
agitated by vain terrors, or deluded by false hope, or loosed from the just and
necessary chains of genuine piety. So that one might resist these and
innumerable other evils, the learned and pious men in former generations of
the Church applied their hands and minds to this work, with the result that they
were conferring, by means of their laborious studies, the Sacred Scripture, or
some part of it, unfolded. For this reason, there is so great a crowd of
commentators, particularly in these latter generations of the Church, to which
generations, by divine mercy alone, this blessedness arose in the midst of many
calamities, with the result that the brightness of heavenly truth was shining
forth more brilliantly, and the words and sense of the Holy Spirit in the Biblical
Books were being thoroughly investigated and more solidly explained than had
been granted in most of the preceding ages. Nevertheless, it is not to be denied
that, among the most learned and painstaking commentaries of certain
commentators, commentaries most worthy even of cedar and marble, a
considerable amount of rubbish from other commentators creeps in, worthy of
the leisure only of the author himself and of his squandering reader, which were
not so much being worn away by the hands of the most studious as they were
becoming prey to moths. And the multitude of interpreters is perhaps not less
detrimental to the Church, or at least to the studies of theologians, than the
multitude of doctors was once to Hadrian.1 Furthermore, since many

1 Dio Cassius’ Roman History 69:22. Hadrian had always been strict in his dietary

19

candidates for theology are destitute either of the knowledge of the field so that
they might discern the best interpreters, or of the judgment by which they
might select the best, or of the endowment by which they might purchase
them, or of the time or inclination by which they might diligently and fruitfully
read them; it is unavoidable that the acquisition of sound knowledge of the
entire Sacred Text be of very great exertion and of the highest difficulty. In
addition, pondering the tendencies and methods of the commentators, I appear
to have detected more than a few errors in many of them: these, by their
prolixity, overwhelm and weary readers; those, by their brevity, envelop and
conceal the sense: these, indifferent with respect to words and phrases; those,
not discerning with respect to substantial matters (especially with respect to
difficult and obscure matters, which chiefly call for the labor of the
interpreter); these overflow in superfluities; those lack in necessities; most stuff
each page of their books, not so much with their own thoughts, as with the
interpretations of others a thousand times repeated.

Oftentimes meditating upon these and other things of the sort, and
anxiously enquiring if any remedy might be applied to these evils, I finally
settled into this train of thought: there would be some medicine for this disease
and a definite lessening of the requisite studies, if someone suitable to the task
would attentively read over the interpreters of better note (first, the critics,
who inquire into words, phrases, and idioms with greater perception; then,
others, who draw forth the substance and sense of the Scripture with greater
precision), would, with the superfluities excised, select the remainder with
prudence and judgment; and would, by a suitable method, arrange the
collected remainder into a compendium, with things added where needed, so
that the deficiencies might be supplemented with learned interpretations of
various passages of the Sacred Text, which interpretations are found here and
there in certain, most weighty authors. This I had often in my prayers, that
someone skilled in the authors and issues and gifted with incisive judgment
might undertake this work. Having been for a long time frustrated in this
expectation, and burning with a most ardent desire for this kind of resource,
since all others were drawing back from the charge as extremely difficult, I,
however inferior, preferred to undertake it myself, rather than to have it
undertaken by no one. Therefore, having implored Him, at the hand of whom
is pas~ a do&sij ag) aqh_ kai\ pan~ dw&rhma te&leion, every good gift and
every perfect gift,1 and thinking over the matter anew and cleaving the soul, at

practices; however, during a prolonged final illness, when his physicians refused to
help him commit suicide, he began to consume food and drink unsuitable for his
condition. Hadrian quoted the popular saying: “The multitude of physicians has slain
a king.”
1 James 1:17.

20

one time here, at another time there, here discouraged by the difficulty of such
a great exertion, there moved by the utility and necessity of the work; finally, I
communicated my thoughts with learned men, neither few, nor of low degree.
To them I opened my mind quite fully; I revealed the authors chiefly out of
whom I was desiring to compose my work; and I likewise exhibited a kind of
rough outline of my plan. When I had thought the outline to have received
sufficient approval from them, being confident of the counsels and
encouragements of them, I set forth my hand with God to this good work; and I
committed a model of it to the press and sent it forth into the light. How
favorable and candid have been the judgments of the professors and other
theologians, both native and foreign, concerning this model! Not a few
published their complimentary testimonies of them, far above my deserving
and hope; others likewise conferred their approbation by most lengthy letters
of favor given unto me, and they have been actively encouraging me unto the
undertaking of the work, liberally promising their influence, if ever it should be
of use. Urged on by their authority, and confident in divine aid, I eagerly
undertook my plan, and after various inconveniences (to which it is not
desirable here to refer), I have at last, although later than I had wished and
hoped, brought to completion the first volume.

Now these are the books and authors from which chiefly I have
composed this Synopsis.1 1. Nine Volumes of Critical Interpreters of the
Sacred Scripture,2 recently printed in London: in which, among many bits of
minutiae (which can be ignored without any loss), useless repetitions (not only
of substance, but also of the very same words), and other things alien to our
plan, are some of the most valuable and excellent thoughts of the most learned
men, thoughts directed toward the interpretation of Sacred Literature. I have
endeavored to set them all forth briefly, and, according to my ability, clearly
and faithfully. And since not a few verses and chapters of the Sacred Codex
have been ingeniously and soundly, although dispersedly and confusedly,
expounded in treatises which are contained in the two last volumes Of Critical
Interpreters, I have brought back those annotations into the order agreeing, and
the place appropriate, to each one, and I have relocated them to their chapters

1 The following section of the “Preface to the Synopsis: Genesis-Esther” is invaluable
and will repay the careful study of the student of the Sacred Text. It stands as a
veritable “Who’s Who” of Reformation-era interpreters, most of whom, having
written in Latin and having never been translated into English, are unavailable to the
English-speaking world. Seeing that these Latin works have never been translated
into English, it was necessary to provide English renderings of the Latin titles, so that
the English-speaking reader might gain some insight into the subject matter of these
works; but the reader, of course, will not be able to find these works under these
English titles. The Latin titles have been provided in the footnotes.
2 Critici Sacri.

21

and verses toward which they are directed. The authors1 in those tomes Of
Critical Interpreters, which we have used in this first volume of the Synopsis,
are as follows. In all or most of the books of this part of Sacred Scripture:
Sebastian Munster,2 Francis Vatablus,3 Sebastian Castalio,4 John Drusius,5 and
Hugo Grotius.6 That lazy and obvious plagiarist, Isidore Clario,7 I gladly pass

1 Because many of the following commentators will not be familiar to contemporary
readers, brief biographical sketches have been included. Most of the biographical
material here presented is common to, and can be found in, standard dictionaries and
encyclopedias of biography, such as James Darling’s Cyclopædia Bibliographica: A
Library Manual of Theological and General Literature, 2 vols. (London: 1859);
Joseph Thomas’ Universal Pronouncing Dictionary of Biography and Mythology, 5th
ed. (Philadelphia and London: Lippincott, 1930); Elihu Rich’s Appletons’
Cyclopædia of Biography: Embracing a Series of Original Memoirs of the Most
Distinguished Persons of All Times, American ed., ed. Francis L. Hawkes (New York:
D. Appleton, 1856); and Oxford Dictionary of National Biography: In Association
with the British Academy: From the Earliest Times to the Year 2000, 60 vols., eds.
H.C.G. Matthew and Brian Harrison (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press,
2004).
2 Sebastian Munster (1489-1552) was a German scholar of great talent in the fields of
mathematics, Oriental studies, and divinity. He joined the Lutherans, became
Professor of Hebrew at Basil, and produced important early Reformation
commentaries on the Old Testament (Annotationes in Vetus Testamentum).
3 Francis Vatablus (c. 1485-1547) was a prominent Hebrew scholar, doing much to
stimulate Hebraic studies in France. He was appointed to the chair of Hebrew in
Paris, 1531. Although a Roman Catholic, his annotations (Annotationes in Vetus et
Novum Testamentum) found employment among Protestants and Catholics alike.
4 Sebastian Castalio (1515-1563) distinguished himself as a scholar by means of his
linguistic talents, evident in his Annotationes in Vetus et Novum Testamentum.
However, the greatness of Castalio’s talents did not extend to the logico-synthetic
work of theology, and he ran into controversy with Calvin. He was inclined towards
Pelagianism, and his views were influential in the development of Socinianism. As a
translator of the Bible, he takes overmuch liberty, attempting to mold the speech of
the prophets to suit those with a taste for classical Latin.
5 John Drusius (1550-1616) was a Protestant, who excelled in Oriental studies,
Biblical exegesis, and critical interpretation, as is evident from his Annotationes in
Pentateuchum, Josuam, Judices, Ruth, Samuelem, Estheram, Jobum, Coheleth, seu
Ecclesiasten, Prophetas Minores, Ecclesiasticum, Tobit, 1 Librum Machabæorum and
Notæ Majores in Genesin, Exodum, Leviticum, et Priora 18 Capita Numerorum. He
served as Professor of Oriental Languages at Oxford (1572), at Louvain (1577), and
at Franeker (1585).
6 Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) distinguished himself in the field of international law,
but he was interested in many fields of learning, including Christian apologetics,
theology, and Biblical criticism and exegesis. His exegetical talents are displayed in
his Annotationes in Vetus et Novum Testamentum. His dual interest in international
law and theology caused him to run afoul of civil authorities: Embracing Arminian
doctrine, he was imprisoned from 1618-1621 after the Synod of Dort declared against
the position.
7 Isidore Clario (1495-1555) was a Benedictine monk. He served as the Prior of the

22

over, who copied out of Munster for the most part, not only thoughts, but even
words, almost verbatim; who, if he had lived in that state where, although
exemption from punishment had been granted to clever thieves, for those so
ignorant and lazy, capital punishment was appointed, without doubt he would
have been condemned to the furca.1 In addition, some short treatises directed
toward this part: John Drusius’ Concerning Mandrakes,2 Joseph Scaliger’s3
and Sixtinus Amama’s4 works Concerning Tithes,5 Louis Cappel’s6 Concerning
the Vow of Jephthah7 and Excerpts out of Villalpando.8 In the next place:
Andrew Masius, counselor-at-law,9 In Joshua;10 a man worthy of a most
lengthy life and immortal memory; an interpreter to whom you will not easily
find an equal with respect to talent, judgment, skill in matters of substance and
languages, sincerity, and modesty. In the next place, in the two last tomes Of
Critical Interpreters, various small treatises concerning various matters or

Monastery of St. Peter in Modena (1537) and as the Bishop of Foligno (1547). He
was present at the Council of Trent. His Annotationes in Vetus et Novum
Testamentum is included in Critici Sacri.
1 The furca (which literally means “fork”) was a wooden, A-shaped frame, used as an
instrument of punishment. An offender’s head would be inserted into the triangle-
shaped gap of the A, and his arms would be tied to the arms of the frame. The
punishments that could be administered with the furca varied widely with respect to
severity, from the humiliation of having to wear it, to the painful death of being
beaten to death while restrained by it.
2 De Mandragoris.
3 Joseph Scaliger (1540-1609) was a skilled linguist and developed into one of the
most learned men of his age. During the course of his studies and travels, he became
a Protestant and suffered exile with the Huguenots. He was offered a professorship at
Leiden (1593), a position which he eventually accepted and in which he remained
until his death.
4 Sixtinus Amama (1593-1629) was Professor of Hebrew at Oxford (1613) and at
Franecker (1618), succeeding John Drusius. He is remembered for his skill in
Oriental languages and his defense of the ultimate authority of the original texts of
Scripture.
5 De Decimis.
6 Louis Cappel (1585-1658) was a Huguenot divine of broad and profound learning.
He served as a minister of the gospel and Professor of Hebrew and Theology at
Saumur. Although his expertise in the Hebrew language was beyond question, his
denial of the authority of the vowel points and of the absolute integrity of the Hebrew
texts were hotly contested.
7 De Voto Jephthæ.
8 Excerpta ex Villalpando ad Capita 40, 41, 42, et 46 Ezechielis. John Baptist
Villalpando (1552-1608) was a Spanish Jesuit. He is noteworthy for his interest in
architecture and his fascination with Ezekiel’s Temple vision.
9 Andrew Masius (1516-1573) was among the most learned Roman Catholic scholars
of his age and in no field is that more evident than in the field of Oriental languages.
He also served as Counselor to William, duke of Cleves.
10 In Josuam.

23

Biblical passages, from which we gathered not a few, the names of which
follow: Christopher Helvicus’1 The Longing of Mother Eve, on Genesis 4:12
and The Paradisaical Protevangelium, on Genesis 3:15;3 John Buteo’s Little
book Concerning the Ark of Noah;4 Matthew Hostus’5 Inquiry into the
Workmanship of the Ark of Noah;6 Martinus Helvicus7 on the prophecy of
Jacob according to Genesis 49:10;8 Peter Pithœus’9 Comparison of the Mosaic
and Roman Laws;10 Georgius Rittershusius’11 Short Treatise concerning the
Law of the Cities of Refuge;12 Matthew Hostus’ Concerning the Duel of David
and Goliath, 1 Samuel 17;13 Michaël Rothardus’ Samuel Redivivus and Saul the
Suicide;14 Leo Allatius’15 Treatise concerning the Witch;16 Gaspar Varrerius’17
Disputation concerning the Region of Ophir;18 William Schickard’s19
Concerning the Feast of Purim;20 Benedict Arias Montanus’1 Book of Jewish

1 Christopher Helvicus (1581-1616) was a German divine and Hebraist of great
learning. He served as Professor of Divinity at Giessen (1610).
2 Desiderium Matris Evæ, ad Genesin 4:1.
3 Protevangelion Paradisiacum, ad Genesin 3:15.
4 John Buteo (c. 1489-1564) was member of the Augustinian Order at Vienne. He
was accomplished in mathematics and mechanics, which skills he applied to
calculations concerning the form and dimensions of the ark in his Libellus de Arca
Noë.
5 Matthew Hostus (1509-1587) was a German Protestant and antiquarian, who labored
as an archeologist and as a professor of Greek.
6 Inquisitio in Fabricam Arcæ Noah.
7 Martinus Helvicus (1596-1632) was the court-preacher of Philipp of Hess and the
brother of Christopher Helvicus.
8 Sceptrum Judæ.
9 Peter Pithœus (1539-1596) was a Huguenot, but later became a Roman Catholic.
Pithœus was a practicing Parisian lawyer and an advocate of Gallicanism (a
movement within Roman Catholicism to decrease papal authority and increase the
authority of the state in and concerning ecclesiastical affairs).
10 Mosaicarum et Romanarum Legum Collatio.
11 George Rittershusius (1595-1661) was a German nobleman and statesman in the
Republic of Nuremburg.
12 Tractatus de Jure Asylorum.
13 In Monomachiam Davidis et Goliathi.

14 Samuel Redivivus et Saul au)to/xeir.

15 Leo Allatius (1586-1669) was born to Greek parents, but he embraced Roman
Catholicism. He was a prolific author, and his works display wide reading. He was
appointed as the keeper of the Vatican library by Pope Alexander VII (1661).
16 De Engastrimytho Syntagma.
17 Gaspar Varrerius (d. 1574) was a Portuguese, Franciscan geographer.
18 De Ophira Regione Disputatio.
19 William Schickard (1592-1635) was a man of diverse interests, whose interests
carried him through several vocations. He was a Lutheran minister, a Professor of
Hebrew, a Professor of Astronomy, and an inventor.
20 De Festo Purim.

24

Antiquities;2 Bonaventure Cornelius Bertram’s3 Concerning the Republic of
the Jews4 and Lucubrations in Frankenthal, or A Specimen of Expositions
concerning the Most Difficult Places in Each Testament;5 Peter Cunæus’
Concerning the Republic of the Jews;6 Gaspar Waser’s7 Concerning the
Ancient Currency of the Hebrews8 and Concerning the Ancient Measurements
of the Hebrews;9 Edward Brerewood’s10 Concerning the Weights and Values
of Old Currencies;11 Anthony Nebrissensis’12 An Explanation of Fifty
Passages;13 a variety from John Drusius, namely, Of Animadversions,14 Sacred
Parallels,15 Of Sacred Observations,16 Of Hebraic Inquiries,17 Classes of
Proverbs,18 A Miscellany of Sacred Expressions,19 Concerning Things Sought
by Epistle,20 Elohim, or Concerning the Name of God.1 These are in the prior

1 Benedict Arias Montanus (1527-1598) was a Spanish Benedictine Monk. He
attended the Council of Trent, and he was heavily involved in the production of the
Polyglot Bible.
2 Antiquitates Judaicæ.
3 Bonaventure Cornelius Bertram (1531-1594) was minister of the gospel and
Professor of Hebrew at Geneva, at Frankenthal, and at Lausanne. His revision of the
French Bible is used by French Calvinists to the present day.
4 De Republica Judæorum.
5 Lucubrationes Franktallenses, sive Specimen Expositionum in Difficillima
Utriusque Testamenti Loca.
6 Peter Cunæus (1586-1638) studied under Scaliger and Drusius, and in 1611 he
became Professor of Law at Leiden. His De Republica Judæorum was based upon
Bertram’s work of the same title, but enlarged with his own research. The republic of
the ancient Israelites is set forth as a pattern for the republic of the Dutch. His book
was well-received by Hebraists and Calvinists in the Netherlands.
7 Gasper Waser (1565-1625) was a minister, and a philologist specializing in Oriental
languages. He was Professor of Hebrew (1596), and later of Greek (1607), at Zurich.
He was eventually promoted to the chair of theology (1611).
8 De Antiquis Numis Hebræorum.
9 De Antiquis Mensuris Hebræorum.
10 Edward Brerewood (1565-1613) was an English mathematician and antiquarian.
He served as Professor of Astronomy at Gresham College (1596).
11 De Ponderibus et Pretiis Nummorum.
12 Anthony Nebrissensis (1441-1552) was a Spanish scholar and classicist. He
employed his learning to further classical literature among his people, to produce the
first grammar of the Spanish language, and to assist in the production of the
Complutensian Polyglot Bible.
13 Quinquaginta Locorum Explanatio.
14 Animadversorum.
15 Parallela Sacra.
16 Observationum Sacrarum.
17 Quæstionum Ebraicarum.
18 Proverbiorum Classes.
19 Miscellanea Locutionum Sacrarum.
20 De Quæsitis per Epistolam.

25

tome. In the posterior tome of critical short treatises: Nicholas Fuller’s2
Sacred Miscellany;3 Samuel Petit’s4 Various Readings in the Sacred Scripture;5
Simon de Muis’6 Various Sacred Things, Composed out of Various Rabbis;7
John Gregorie’s8 Notes and Observations on Some Passages of Sacred
Scripture;9 Paul Fagius’10 Comparison of the Principal Translations, Varying
among Themselves, of the Old Testament;11 Christopher Cartwright’s12
Hebrew Honey-making, or Choice Observations from the Records of the
Ancient Hebrews;13 Lucas Brugensis’14 Notations on the Varying Passages of
the Sacred Books;15 Louis Cappel’s The Threefold Sketch of the Jerusalem
Temple;16 John Cloppenburg’s17 Critical and Sacred Collections through the
Epistles, with Louis de Dieu;18 Francis Moncæius’1 Aaron Purged, or

1 Elohim, sive de Nomine Dei.
2 Nicholas Fuller (1557-1622) was an English churchman, a learned divine, and a
critic of great judgment. He excelled in the languages of the Scripture, and he applied
his considerable talents to the resolution of Scripture difficulties.
3 Miscellanea Sacra.
4 Samuel Petit (1594-1645) was a precocious scholar, who was so advanced in his
studies at the age of seventeen that he was admitted into the ministry in Geneva.
Soon afterwards, he served as Professor of Theology, Greek, and Hebrew in that city.
5 Variæ Lectiones in Sacram Scripturam.
6 Simon de Muis (1587-1644) was one of the most learned Hebraists of his day. He
served in both the academy, as Hebrew Professor of the Royal College of France, and
in the Roman Church, as Canon and Archdeacon of Soissons.
7 Varia Sacra, Variis è Rabbinis Contexta.
8 John Gregorie (1607-1646) was an English divine and churchman of considerable
learning. He was preferred to the Prebendary of Salisbury in 1641, but he was
deprived at the outbreak of the civil war.
9 Notæ et Observationes in Aliquot Sacræ Scripturæ Loca.
10 Paul Fagius (1504-1550) was among the early reformers and a Hebrew scholar of
some ability. He studied in Germany and labored there, first as a schoolmaster, then
as a minister. He left Germany for England in 1549, and he died at Cambridge in
1550. His bones were burned during the reign of Queen Mary.
11 Translationum Præcipuarum Veteris Testamenti inter Se Variantium Collatio.
12 Christopher Cartwright (1602-1658) was an English churchman, ministering at
York, and a rabbinic scholar.
13 Mellificium Hebraicum, sive Observationes ex Hebræ Antiquiorum Monumentis
Desumptæ.
14 Lucas Brugensis (1549-1619) was a Jesuit scholar, who labored in the collation of
manuscripts.
15 In Variantia Sacrarum Bibliarum Loca Notationes.
16 Templi Hierosolymitani Delineatio Triplex.
17 John Cloppenburg (1592-1652) was a Dutch pastor and theologian. After some
years of pastoring, he was appointed Professor of Theology at Harderwick.
18 Collationes Criticæ Sacræ per Epistolas, cum Ludovico de Dieu. Louis de Dieu
(1590-1642) was a Huguenot minister of Dutch origin, and he was a linguist and critic
of extraordinary talent and judgment.

26

Concerning the Golden Calf;2 Hugo Grotius’ Concerning the Truth of the
Christian Religion.3 Moreover, I have presented excerpts from Greek authors,
particularly those excerpts which are presented in the works of Grotius.
Excerpts set forth only in Greek I have presented in Latin, not so much
recounting the words as rendering the sense, mindful of that maxim: “The
faithful translator will take care not to translate word for word.”4 2. The
Greatest Bible,5 divided into nineteen volumes, published in Paris, 1660,
compiled by John de la Haye,6 patched together from various versions
(wrongly collected because of his method) and out of the annotations of literal
interpreters: Nicholas de Lyra,7 William Estius,8 John Stephen Menochius,9
James Tirinus,10 etc. In this writer, some other interpretations of the Sacred
Scriptures present themselves, interpretations which are very little to be
despised, yet (so that I might state what the issue is) “they appear scattered,
swimming in the vast abyss.”11 Consequently, I have been content to dig them
out from that immense pile of rubble and, while passing by the rubbish (that is,
passing by almost entire volumes), to select that which might carry some
importance and might shed some sort of light upon the Sacred Literature. 3.
Commentaries in the Sacred Scripture from Genesis to Ezekiel 12 by Thomas
Malvenda of Spain,13 who certainly with great industry (if only he had added

1 Francis Moncæius was a French archeologist and author, whose work flourished
during the late sixteenth century.
2 Aaron Purgatus, sive de Vitulo Aureo.
3 De Veritate Religionis Christianæ.
4 Quintus Horatius Flaccus (65 BC-8 AD), Ars Poetica. Horace was a Roman poet,
perhaps the greatest of his day.
5 Biblia Maxima.
6 John de la Haye (1593-1661) was a Franciscan monk. His principal contribution to
the field of exegesis is his collation of the comments of others.
7 Nicholas de Lyra (1270-1340) was born to Jewish parents, but he converted to
Christianity. He entered the Franciscan Order and became a teacher of some repute in
Paris. His Postilla in Vetus et Novum Testamentum demonstrate remarkable ability
and a commitment to the literal sense of the Scripture.
8 William Estius (1542-1613) labored first as a lecturer on Divinity, then as the
Chancellor at Doway. In his commentary writing, as exemplified in his Commentarii
in Sacram Scripturam and Commentarii in Epistolas Apostolicas, he focuses on the
literal meaning of the text and draws it forth with skill and judgment.
9 John Stephen Menochius (1576-1656) joined the Society of Jesuits at an early age.
His superiors in the order, recognizing his academic abilities, set him apart for
training in the exposition of Holy Scripture. His Commentarii in Sacram Scripturam
displays great learning and sound judgment.
10 James Tirinus (1580-1636) was a Flemish Jesuit priest. His abilities as a
commentator are displayed in his Commentaria in Sacram Scripturam.
11 Virgil’s Æneid 1:118.
12 Commentaria in Sacram Scripturam à Genesi ad Ezechielem.
13 Thomas Malvenda (1566-1628) was a Spanish Dominican. Within his order, he

27

judgment also) joined together various versions and interpretations, especially
of difficult passages, from divers authors, yet with the names of most of them
concealed. Also, he added his own version, literal at least, but with affected
and absurd word choices; he presented the other, more suitable words,
recorded either in the margin or in the comments. 4. Francis Junius’1 notes,2
certainly brief, but refined with multifarious erudition and high judgment,
whose few momentous words equal the volumes of others. Hugo Grotius said:
“The labors [of Junius] are not to be despised.” This is properly and truly
spoken; but, he would have been able to say more, and they will say more,
however many will have perceived the labors of Junius with impartial eyes,
labors to be esteemed highly and stationed among the first rank of interpreters.
5. John Piscator’s3 critical notes,4 sound and often shrewd, in which he both
revives the version of Junius and Tremellius for consideration and draws out
the power and the sense of the words and phrases of the Sacred Books. 6. John
Mariana’s5 notes,6 certainly scanty with respect to bulk, but not to be despised
with respect to use; written with judgment. 7. Lucas Osiander’s7
expositions,8 etc.: this author is not prolix, but he is solid. 8. Cornelius à
Lapide,9 in whose commentaries,10 among many things unrelated to the

was widely regarded for his abilities in philosophy and divinity.
1 Francis Junius (1545-1602) was a Huguenot divine of great learning. He suffered
the varied fortunes of his people; but he had the opportunity to study in Geneva, and
he was eventually appointed Professor of Divinity at Leiden (1592). He labored with
Tremellius in the production of their famous Latin Version of the Old Testament. He
is also remembered for his disputations with Jacob Arminius.
2 Explicationes Analyticæ Pentateuchi.
3 John Piscator (1546-1626) was a learned Protestant divine. He held the position of
Professor of Divinity at Herborn (1584). His German version was the first, complete
and independent, since that of Martin Luther. Through the course of his career, his
views changed from those of the Lutherans to those of the Calvinists, and from those
of the Calvinists to those of the Arminians. He remains widely regarded for his
abilities as a commentator.
4 Commentarii in Omnes Libros Veteris et Novi Testamenti.
5 John Mariana (c. 1536-1624) was a Spanish, Jesuit scholar. His magnum opus was
the thirty book history of Spain, Historiæ de Rebus Hispaniæ.
6 Scholia Brevia.
7 Lucas Osiander (1534-1604) was a distinguished Lutheran divine and minister. He
was also an accomplished composer of music.
8 Annotationes in Utrumque Testamentum and Biblia Latina ad Fontes Hebraici
Textus Emendata, cum Brevi and Perspicua Expositione.
9 Cornelius à Lapide (1567-1637) was a Flemish Jesuit scholar. His talents were
employed in the professorship of Hebrew at Louvain, then at Rome. Although his
commentaries (covering all the Roman Catholic canon, excepting only Job and the
Psalms) develop the four-fold sense of Scripture, he emphasizes the literal. His
knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, and the commentators that preceded him is remarkable.
10 Commentaria in Vetus et Novum Testamentum.

28

matter, I discovered not a few things written with learning and acumen beyond
that which is common, which things I gathered and inserted immediately into
my work where needed. 9. Tostatus’1 massive volumes, a work of immense
effort, and not of scanty use. From this author, not a few succeeding authors
have borrowed many things, who, nevertheless, have left behind some
gleanings for us.

To these I have added many, excellent expositions of diverse, and
especially of difficult, passages, expositions which are for the most part
sprinkled, nay, scattered, in the works of certain illustrious men, expositions
which are returned by me into the proper places. Now, the names of those
authors and works are subjoined here: Louis de Dieu’s Sacred Criticism, or
Animadversions concerning Certain, Most Difficult Passages of the Old and
New Testaments;2 Samuel Bochart’s3 Sacred Geography and Sacred Catalogue
of Animals, or A Bipartite Work concerning the Animals of Scripture;4 Louis
Cappel’s Sacred Criticism, or Six Books concerning Various Readings which
Present Themselves in the Sacred Books of the Old Testament: in which
Volumes as Many Passages as Possible Are Explained, Illustrated, and (not a
Few) Emended out of the Observation of the Various Readings;5 John
Buxtorf’s6 Against Criticism, or Vindication of the Integrity of the Hebrew
against the Criticism of Louis Cappel, which He Calls Sacred;7 Solomon
Glassius’ Sacred Philology,8 especially that part called “Sacred Grammar”; the
Works of the remarkably learned Joseph Mede of England,9 packed full of

1 Alonso Tostado, or Tostatus (c. 1400-1455), was a Spanish, Roman Catholic
churchman and scholar. He was trained in philosophy, theology, civil and canon law,
Greek, and Hebrew.
2 Critica Sacra, sive Animadversiones in Loca Quædam Difficiliora Veteris et Novi
Testamenti.
3 Samuel Bochart (1599-1667) was a French pastor and scholar with a wide variety of
interests, including philology, theology, geography, and zoology. He was on familiar
terms with many of the greatest men of his age.
4 Geographia Sacra and Hierozoicon, sive Bipertitum Opus de Animalibus Scripturæ.
5 Critica Sacra, sive de Variis quæ in Sacris Veteris Testamenti Libris Occurrunt
Lectionibus Libri Sex: in quibus ex Variarum Lectionum Observatione Quamplurima
Sacræ Scripturæ Loca Explicantur, Illustrantur, atque adeò Emendantur non Pauca.
6 John Buxtorf (1599-1664) labored as Professor of Oriental languages at Calvinistic
Basel. His scholarship in Hebrew and Rabbinic learning was such that he was known
as “Master of the Rabbis.”
7 Anticritica: seu Vindiciæ Veritatis Hebraicæ Adversus Ludovici Cappelli Criticam
quam Vocat Sacram.
8 Solomon Glassius (1593-1656) was a German Lutheran divine and critic. He was
Professor of Divinity at the University of Jena. His Philologia Sacra was a
groundbreaking work in Biblical Hebrew.
9 Although most remembered for his work on John’s Apocalypse and his
escatological views, Joseph Mede (1586-1638) treats texts spanning the entire Bible

29

uncommon erudition, written mostly in English; various works of John
Lightfoot1 S.T.P.,2 published partly in English and partly in Latin, composed
with singular learning, who also most kindly offered his assistance in this work;
the most learned works of Thomas Gataker,3 Cinnus, or Adversarial
Miscellanies,4 Posthumous Adversarial Miscellanies,5 and others, partly
printed, partly a)ne/kdota/unpublished, especially the manuscript annotations,
taken from many authors, with many others added by him, which his reverend
son6 communicated to me, to whom, on that account, however many erudite
men will profit from these will render (I hope) a great many thanks.

And since in the preceding commentators not a few necessary things
are lacking for a full and sound knowledge of many passages of the Sacred Text,
I consulted other authors, as reserves, three or four, critical interpreters
especially, or other interpreters of foremost quality on individual Sacred Books.
Of course, I consulted those, who have openly and more extensively elucidated
those books by their comments and have especially labored in clarifying
difficulties, namely: in the notes concerning the Pentateuch, the Commentary
on the Pentateuch7 of Oleaster,8 wherein many things are incisively discussed,
many things are eruditely drawn out from the inner chambers of the Hebrew
tongue; the Annotations upon the Five Books of Moses of Henry Ainsworth of
England,9 written in the English language, and indeed written with so much

in his Works. Mede was first a student, and then a fellow, tutor, and Reader of Greek,
at Christ’s College, Cambridge.
1 John Lightfoot (1602-1675) was a minister and divine of such distinction and
learning that he was invited to sit as a member of the Assembly of Divines at
Westminster. He specialized in Rabbinic learning and lore. He brought that learning
to bear in his defense of Erastianism in the Assembly and in his comments upon Holy
Scripture.
2 “S.T.P.” is an abbreviation of “Professor of Sacred Theology.”
3 Thomas Gataker (1574-1654) was in his day regarded as a critic of unsurpassed
skill, learning, and judgment. On account of his great learning, he was invited to sit
as a member of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster. Darling: “In the
Assembly’s Annotations, he wrote on the Books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and
Lamentations, so admirably that [Edmund] Calamy has observed that no
commentator, ancient or modern, is entitled to higher praise.” Cyclopædia
Bibliographica, vol. 1, 1221.
4 Cinnus, sive Adversaria Miscellanea.
5 Adversaria Miscellanea Posthuma.
6 Charles Gataker, son of Thomas Gataker, was Rector in the county of Bucks from
1647 to 1680.
7 Commentaria in Pentateuchum.
8 Jerome Olivier (or de Oleastro) was a Portuguese Dominican monk who flourished
during the mid-sixteenth century. He was widely esteemed within his order for his
abilities in theology, Greek, and Hebrew.
9 Henry Ainsworth (1571-1622) was an English Nonconformist, Separatist, and early
Congregationalist. Ainsworth served a group of English Nonconformists in

30

acumen and judgment, fidelity and skill, that I dare to pronounce the
annotations worthy, which are translated into foreign languages (and therefore,
I gleaned from him more, and more meticulously, in order to please
theologians, especially the foreign ones); Jacobus Bonfrerius’1 The Pentateuch
of Moses, Illuminated with Commentary,2 lengthy enough, but erudite and
sound, elaborated with an extraordinary skill in languages and in matters of
substance, in which difficult passages, by the rest nearly neglected, are
diligently investigated and often satisfactorily explained.

To these I added many choice things from the commentaries of John
Mercerus3 on Genesis,4 of Andrew Rivet5 on Genesis6 and Exodus,7 of
Andrew Willet of England8 on Genesis,9 Exodus,10 and Leviticus;11 moreover,
from the annotations of Peter Picherel12 on the three first chapters of Genesis13
(would that he had applied that perceptive intellect, that weight of judgment,
and that thorough knowledge of the languages to commenting upon more
places in Sacred Scripture). Also I selected not a few things concerning the
location of Paradise, Genesis 2, out of our own Marmaduke Carver,14 who

Amsterdam; he held the office of Doctor. Darling’s evaluation of his works of
Biblical criticism: “He was profoundly learned in Hebrew and Rabbinical literature,
and on that account his annotations have always been held in great esteem.” Ibid., 34.
1 Jacobus Bonfrerius (1573-1642) joined the order of the Jesuits in 1592. He enjoyed
a long tenure as a professor of the Scriptures and Hebrew at Douay, France.
2 Pentateuchus Mosis Commentario Illustratus.
3 John Mercerus (d. 1562) began his career as a Roman Catholic scholar. He was one
of the sixteenth century’s greatest experts in Hebrew, and he served as Professor of
Hebrew and Chaldean in the Royal College, Paris (1549). Roman Catholics lamented
his conversion to Protestantism.
4 In Genesin Commentarius.
5 Andrew Rivet (1573-1651) was a Huguenot minister and divine. He ministered at
Sedan and at Thouara; he went on to teach at the University of Leiden (1619-1632)
and at the college at Breda. His influence among Protestants extended well beyond
France.
6 Exercitationes CXCI Theologicæ et Scholasticæ in Genesin.
7 Commentarii in Exodum.
8 Andrew Willet (1562-1621) was a product of Christ’s College, and he went on to
serve the Anglican Church in various ministerial posts. He is noteable for his abilities
in Greek and Hebrew, and his familiarity with the literature necessary for the right
interpretation of Scripture.
9 Hexapla in Genesin.
10 Hexapla; or, Sixfold Commentarie upon Exodus.
11 Hexapla; or, Sixfold Commentarie on Leviticus.
12 Peter Picherel (c. 1510-1590) was a learned French monk.
13 In Cosmopœiam ex Quinque Primis Geneseos Capitibus Paraphrasis; Opuscula
Theologica.
14 Marmaduke Carver (d. 1665) was an English Protestant, and he served as Rector of
Harthill, Yorkshire.

31

wrote an erudite short treatise concerning this in the English language.1 In
Joshua and Judges, I cited Nicholas Serarius,2 Jacobus Bonfrerius,3 and Arias
Montanus;4 Serarius and Bonfrerius have set forth the Book of Ruth, explicated
with their comments. To them I added Peter Martyr5 On the Book of Judges.6
In the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, I consulted Nicholas Serarius,
Gaspar Sanchez,7 Peter Martyr,8 and Strigelius,9 also Mendoça10 on part of 1
Samuel. In the books of Ezra and Nehemiah: Gaspar Sanchez11 and John
Wolfius.12 In the Book of Esther: Nicholas Serarius,13 Gaspar Sanchez,14 and
Bonart.15 And here the first volume concludes.

Perhaps some will be surprised that, in the catalogue of authors, John
Calvin does not appear as an interpreter, being acute, learned, and solid, even
in the judgment of adversaries. There are some that will treat this as a fault in
me, and they will sue me for the injury of so great a name; others will be glad,
because I have passed by him, whom they have hated worse than a dog or

1 A Discourse of the Terrestrial Paradise, Aiming at a More Probable Discovery of
the True Situation of That Happy Place of Our First Parents’ Habitation.
2 Nicholas Serarius (1555-1610) was a Jesuit scholar. He served as Professor of
Theology at the University of Mentz. Commentarius in Librum Josuæ, Judicum,
Ruth, Regum, et Paralipomenon.
3 Josue, Judices et Ruth, Commentario Illustrati.
4 De Optimo Imperio.
5 Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499-1562) began his career as an Augustinian monk,
preacher, and lecturer in Italy. Through personal study of the Scripture and the
Reformers, Peter Vermigli came to embrace the Protestant doctrines. He settled in
England and served as Professor of Divinity at Oxford and as Canon of Christ
Church. Unhappily, he was forced to flee from England as well, when Mary took the
throne. He settled in Zurich and became Professor of Divinity there. Darling: “He
was a man of sound judgment, great learning, and genius, and excelled as a
commentator.” Ibid., 1991.
6 In Librum Judicum Commentarii.
7 Gasper Sanchez (1554-1628) was a Jesuit scholar. Commentarius et Paraphrasis in
Libros Regum.
8 In Duos Libros Samuelis Prophetæ Commentarii Doctissimi.
9 Victorinus Strigelius (1524-1569) was a Melanchthonian Lutheran scholar and
Professor of Divinity at Jena. Libri Samuelis, Regum, et Paralipomenon, ad
Veritatem Hebraicam Recogniti and Breviis Commentarii Explicati.
10 Francisco de Mendoça (1573-1626) was a Portuguese Jesuit scholar. Commentaria
in Libros Regum.
11 In Nehemiam.
12 John Wolfius (1521-1571) resided in Zurich. His In Esdram Commentarii and
Nehemias, etc., de Instaurata Hierosolyma, sive in Nehemiæ Librum Commentaria
was commended by Bishop Parkhurst for its excellence.
13 In Esther.
14 In Librum Esther.
15 Olivier Bonar (1570-1655) was a Flemish Jesuit scholar. In Estheram
Commentaria Litteralis et Moralis.

32

snake. Therefore, I might desire that both should know that I did not insert any
author into this work in order to gain the favor of anyone whatsoever, nor did I
decline any so that I might avoid the odium of others; but I applied my
judgment, such as it may be, purged (as much as I was able) of all zeal for
parties. As far as it is concerned with Calvin: 1. I have touched on some
things from him, where it was needed, from time to time, intent on gathering
other things in like manner from him in the progress of the work, if ever other
interpreters failed, or use required. 2. The commentaries of Calvin are not so
much critical (upon which sort the present plan especially focuses), as they are
practical; neither do they so much examine words and phrases (in which things
this Synopsis is principally engaged), as they thoroughly treat theological
matters and apply them to practice. 3. They, who wrote after Calvin,
gathered almost everything out of Calvin; they furnish their books with his
interpretations, even those who assault the author, their teacher, with insults,
as it would be easy to demonstrate with specific names. Therefore, these
refurbished his discoveries with some of their own additions, and, what was not
difficult, they fashioned them into a better and more accurate form.
Consequently, gathering many things from these, I by no means neglect Calvin,
but I everywhere bring him forth, even amplified and illustrated by the
additions of others. 4. Almost all have Calvin in their hands and libraries;
they, who are favorable to that name, consult him, and they will join him
perhaps with the critical interpreters in perusal. However, those to whom
Calvin is displeasing are able freely to pass over him, if they wish. Thus,
neither ought to be angry with me. For, they, who might wish him absent, will
not much be weighed down with his presence; however, they, who might
prefer him present, will remember that “waters are sweetest from the fount
itself,”1 and that I would not wish to shake Calvin out of the hands of anyone.

Finally, for supplying paraleipo/mena/deficiencies of all that
remains, I drew in various versions, or (as they are commonly called)
translations, to be considered and to be brought to bear, whenever it might
have seemed useful. This, in the showy title and preface of The Greatest Bible,
John de le Haye has most generously promised; and, principally by means of
this allurement, I was attracted to procure his immense volumes, at no small
price. From these I eagerly seized not a few things of this kind at first, and I set
them in their places. However, in the progress of the work, I perceived that I
was not a little mistaken with respect to my expectation. Indeed, he brought
together those things with no judgment, for the most part heaping up vanities,
listlessly omitting the things of more importance and those in which the
difficulty lies. He presented phrases to us: from one author, the beginning of a

1 Publius Ovidius Naso’s Epistulæ ex Ponto 3:5:18. Ovid (43 BC-17 AD) was a
Roman poet.

33

verse; from another, the middle; from a third, the end; from the rest (whose
versions, notwithstanding, I judged not rarely to be the most appropriate)
absolutely nothing. With all of this in view, all of this labor has been rendered
almost useless for that which ought to be prime in such an excellent plan, that
is, the collection of diverse interpreters and of various versions of a word or
phrase. Therefore, I judged the matter worthy to be repeated from the ovum,
as they say, and each particular thing (as usefulness might require) worthy to be
drawn from the very fountains, drawn, of course, from the best and most
accurate versions of the Sacred Scripture, produced by learned men, ancient
and modern. Of these versions, I chiefly consulted the following, drawing
them together and placing their readings side-by-side: the Vulgate, the version
of Arias Montanus, the Septuagint, the Chaldean, the Samaritan, the Syriac, and
the Arabic, all of which I found collected in a Bible Polyglot.1 To these I drew,
as worthy to be added, the most painstaking versions of the modern men: the
version of Pagnine,2 Munster, Leo Jud or Tigurinus,3 Junius and Tremellius,
Piscator, Malvenda, Castalio, the English, the Dutch, the French, and versions
of several different books, for example, of the Pentateuch by Oleaster and
Ainsworth and of the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles by Strigelius.

But here the foot is to be fixed for a little while. Concerning these
versions and the authors of them, it will neither be useless, unpleasant, nor
ap) rosdio/nuson/unseasonble to preface some things, so that all of the
readers might know the singular use and the surpassing importance of them,
and might be aroused unto the study of the Hebrew tongue, without the
knowledge of which he would be able to offer absolutely no judgment
concerning the diversity of these versions. Consequently, I will go forward,
albeit briefly. There are six ancient versions which I used in my Synopsis. 1.
The Vulgar Latin Version: the same for the most part with that of Jerome, but
variously changed and interpolated, and established by the decree of the Roman
Pontiff. Some extol this version with astonishing praises; others criticize not
less than the others praise; others think, however, that it renders the Sacred
Text, sometimes brilliantly, sometimes unhappily, usually tolerably. 2. The

1 It appears that the Polyglot to which Poole is referring is Biblia Hebraica,
Samaritana, Chaldaica, Syriaca, Græca, Latina, et Arabica, edited by Gui-Michel
Lejay (1588-1674), a French scholar, expert in Oriental languages.
2 Pagnine (1466-1541) was an Italian Dominican. He was gifted as a Hebraist,
exegete, and preacher. He was commissioned by Pope Leo X to produce a new Latin
translation of the Scripture.
3 Leo Jud (1482-1542) was a co-laborer of Ulrich Zwingli during the time of the
Swiss Reformation. His translation work might be his most important contribution to
the reformation of Zurich. He labored with other divines to produce a vernacular
version for the Swiss people, and he produced a Latin version of the Old Testament,
usually known as “Tigurinus”, which would be translated, “of Zurich”.

34

Greek Septuagint: thus called, because it is said to have been produced by
seventy-two, or, when they declare it by the round number, seventy learned
men. Whether those translators really only translated the Pentateuch, or the
entire Old Testament; whether it is the true stock of those translators which
we have in our hands, or rather a counterfeit, hitherto theologians are debating:
“It is not for us to settle such great disputes.”1 Nevertheless, this I might dare
say, that the Greek Version of the Pentateuch is more than a little more
polished than that of the subsequent books, and more agreeable to the verity of
the Hebrew. 3. The Chaldean Version, in the Pentateuch, boasts Onkelos2 as
author, which is certainly the most notable part of this version. Jonathan ben
Uzziel3 translated the Former and Latter Prophets. Now, if I might note this in
passing: The books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings come to the Hebrews
by the name of “Former Prophets;” on the other hand, some major books
(Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, of course) and other minor books (which both
are and are called the Twelve) are called by the name of “Latter Prophets.” It is
also to be noted that Jonathan and Onkelos lived around the time of Christ.
Who might have translated the “Writings” (by which name all the rest of the
books of the Old Testament come) is hitherto undecided among the learned.
Nevertheless, that version is ascribed by many to Joseph Cæcus.4 4. The
Syriac Version of the Old Testament: this translation, which is certainly
derived from the Hebrew (for I do not disregard that the next is from the
Greek) and which appears in the Bible Polyglot, is without doubt the most
ancient, made just before the times of the Apostles (the tradition of the men of
the East being most uniform) or even in the time of Solomon, if you will
believe Gabriel Sionita,5 who relates that this is the most accepted tradition of
the Chaldeans and Syrians. Furthermore, he relates that some part of it is older
than the Apostles themselves, for Paul seems to make use of it and follow it in
Ephesians 4:8, where from Psalm 68:18 he produced these words, “He gave
gifts to men,” as it is in the Syriac Version of the Psalms, while in the Hebrew

1 Virgil, Eclogue 3:108.
2 According to Jewish tradition, Onkelos, a first century Roman nobleman, was a
convert to Judaism. His translation of the Hebrew Pentateuch into Aramaic is, on the
whole, quite literal; however, Onkelos does depart from the literal sense of the text in
poetry and in places of theological difficulty.
3 Jonathan ben Uzziel (first century) was one of the great pupils of Hillel. It is a
matter of some doubt whether Jonathan ben Uzziel is actually responsible for the
translation of this portion of the Chaldean Version. For the most part, Targum
Jonathan tends to be more paraphrastic and expansive than Targum Onkelos.
4 Jewish tradition has it that Joseph Cæcus was a third century rabbi, but there appears
to be some question as to whether there is any historical personage behind this name.
5 Gabriel Sionita (1577-1648) was a learned Maronite, expert in Arabic and Syriac.
He served as a professor of Oriental languages, and he assisted Lejay in compiling the
above mentioned Polyglot.

35

and Greek it is, “He received gifts . . .”. This translation in many passages is
accurate and learned, and like unto the Hebrew text; however, not rarely it
differs from it and follows the Greek; and it is quite inferior to itself in the
books of the Chronicles and Proverbs. 5. The Arabic Version: which that
most learned man, Arnold Boot,1 asserts to be of no value in rendering, not
even the Hebrew, but the Greek text, and that corrupted; in each of these, he
was certainly in error. For I discovered that this version is frequently accurate
and faithful, and that it did not follow so much the Greek as the Syriac, which it
for the most part copies verbatim, even in errors and trifles. The antiquity of
this version they easily construct both from the testimony of the ancients, from
the nature of the thing itself, and from a great multitude of learned men, both
Christian and Jewish, who have made use of that tongue; and it is altogether
probable that they burned with no less zeal for the translating of the Sacred
Scriptures into their own language than the rest of the nations. Now, the
exemplar that I have used in this work is that Antiochian edition produced by
Gabriel Sionita, which is read in the Bible Polyglot. Moreover, the Latin
translation of the Syriac and Arabic versions has the same Gabriel Sionita as
author. 6. The Samaritan Version, which is of the Pentateuch only (for the
Samaritans do not receive the rest of the Sacred Books), has been revered for its
antiquity, in as much as it is believed to have originated before Christ; and it
restores the text, often happily, and it has usefulness which is not to be
despised. Moreover, it is to be noted that in many texts this version is two-
fold; of which they call one the Samaritan Text, the other the Samaritan
Version. The Biblical Polyglot exhibits both to us. These are able to suffice
from the ancients.

The more modern versions are: 1. The version of Saint Pagnine:2
which claims the first place by right, older than all of the others, in as much as
it was first produced in 1523, or, as others prefer, 1528. In the production of
this version, that great man (with the encouragement and contributions of Leo
X) labored for approximately twenty-five years. Nearly all learned men favor
this version as most literal (since its literality was able to be accomplished
tastefully) and dependable, prepared with singular judgment and knowledge.
The edition I have used was printed in Zurich, 1579. 2. The version of
Sebastian Munster3 (how excellent and how great a man, especially in the
darkness of those times and scholarship): who, besides his annotations, which
we have in the Nine Volumes of Critical Interpreters of the Sacred Scripture

1 Arnold Boot (1606-1650) was a Dutch physician, who excelled, not only in the
practice of medicine, but also in the study of Oriental languages. He defended the
integrity of the Hebrew text and vowel points against Louis Cappel.
2 Biblia Latina, ex Hebræo, per Xantem Pagninum.
3 Biblia Hebraica cum Latina Planeque Nova Translatione.

36

(published in London), prepared his version from the Hebrew text with
uncommon learning and the highest acumen, in which he reproduces the
Hebrew in most places with the utmost fidelity, but not less clearly. My
exemplar was printed in Zurich, 1539. I am not able to note here the slight
honesty of John de la Haye, not with the stigma it so richly deserves, who
brings forth this version often indeed in the The Greatest Bible, but he always
calls it “Venetian”, apprehensive (I believe) lest the most infamous name of the
heretical Munster defile that work. 3. The version of Arias Montanus:1 who
interpolated here and there the version of Pagnine. Where Pagnine’s version
departs from the Hebrew words, he referred it into the margin, and in its place
he substituted his own, which copies the Hebrew verbatim. Consequently, not
undeservingly, the learned men pass him by with this censure, that he, without
cause, dislodged the version of Pagnine, and in the place of the good terms of
Pagnine, he has placed his own deformed, awkward, and barbarous terms. 4.
The Zurich Version, or the version of Leo Jud Tigurinus:2 by whom a version
of the Old Testament was made and produced in 1543. This version,
composed with the highest erudition and great judgment, might not always
imitate the very words of the Hebrew text, but it renders the sense in most
places, and especially in the most difficult places, ingeniously and faithfully.
Moreover, with respect to propriety and purity of diction, perspicuity and
elegance of style, and the rest of the excellences of good translation, he is able
to contend even with those of the first rank. Wherefore it happens that the
very Romanists, who damn other versions (namely, those of Munster, Castalio,
and Junius) and prohibit the use of them in the Expurgatory Index,3
nevertheless, appear to approve this one after a fashion; and the Spanish
theologians of Salamanca4 have allowed it as reworked, changed in only four
places, and slightly at that, as I learned from a most learned man, who
compared the editions. Now, my edition was produced in Hanovia, 1605. In
this edition, the various annotations of Francis Vatablus, taken down by his
students from his mouth, are placed in the margin, which annotations, because
they have been annexed to the “Tigurinus Bible”, I everywhere call the
“Tigurinus Notes” in the Synopsis, from which I choose not a few things, which
do not appear in the more lengthy notes of Vatablus written in Nine Volumes
of Critical Interpreters of the Sacred Scripture, published in London. 5. The
version of Sebastian Castalio: produced first in Basel in 1551, which he
maintains in the preface that he developed “over a period of many years, in a

1 Bibilia Sacra, Hebraice, Chaldaice, Græce et Latine.
2 Biblia Latina ex Hebræo, Translata in Sermonem Latinum.
3 Books on the Index Expurgatorius are only allowed to Roman Catholics in a
censored, “expurgated,” form.
4 In the sixteenth century, the University of Salamanca was one of the great centers of
Roman Catholic theological scholarship.

37

continuous process, without distraction, in a state of good health, so that the
matter might be handled with consummate zeal.” In this version, he is not at all
anxious about rendering the Hebrew text verbatim; but he expresses the sense
of a great many passages clearly, simply, elegantly, and faithfully, and he with
some frequency happily resolves great difficulties by means of his translation.
6. The version of Lucas Osiander, theologian of Tübingen, and ecclesiastical
courtier of the prince of Wittenberg, who furnishes the Vulgar Latin Version,
but variously supplements and corrects it; and, when the Vulgate translator
departs from the Hebrew text, he inserts his own, or rather (as he freely
acknowledges in the Epistle) the German version of Luther, which he
appropriates “as a most excellent and most perspicuous version, produced with
prodigious labor, most meticulous judgment, and admirable skill,” and asserts
that “the work is so great that the sun has seen nothing more perfect in this kind
than it.” Within this version, Osiander has interwoven annotations, brief
indeed, but by no means to be despised. Concerning him, the dean and
theological faculty of Tübingen say these, among other, things: “He brings
forth many things, devised with consummate industry, developed with
ingenuity in proportion to his excellent erudition, for explaining Biblical Texts.
And what Flaccius1 judged as connected with the highest difficulty, D.D.2
Osiander has quite successfully comprehended, with the result that abundance
is discernible in brevity, and brevity in abundance.” 7. The version of Francis
Junius and Immanuel Tremellius:3 which was first produced around 1575,
afterwards reviewed by Junius in 1587, which was received with the great
applause of the Reformed Churches, as both the unanimous judgments of the
clergymen concerning the excellence of it and the often renewed editions of it
do sufficiently demonstrate. And although some versions might differ less from
the Hebrew in certain passages, indeed some do render the sense more
distinctly and elegantly; nevertheless, with all things considered and laid out
that are required for an accurate version (namely: similarity with the authentic
text reaching even to the very accents, which others for the most part neglect;
the sense drawn out with great acumen and rendered with maximum fidelity;
the word choices, if not always the most polished, for the most part proper and
suitable; the difficult passages most diligently weighed, most learnedly and

1 Matthæus Flaccius Illyricus (1520-1575) was a Lutheran divine. He served as
Professor of Hebrew at Wittenburg (1544), then as Professor of New Testament at
Jena (1557). He made great contributions in the fields of church history and
hermeneutics.
2 “D.D.” is an abbreviation of “Doctor of Divinity.”
3 John Immanuel Tremellius (1510-1580) converted from Judaism to Christianity and
quickly embraced the principles of the Reformation. He taught Hebrew at Strasburg
(1541) and at Cambridge (succeeding Paul Fagius in 1549), and served as Professor
of Old Testament at Heidelberg (1561).

38

solidly settled), this version will perhaps claim and win for itself the first rank
among equitable judges. 8. The version of John Piscator: which follows
Junius’ version in a great many places; in which, nevertheless, he often corrects
many things with sound judgment, and he substitutes his own version, which is
frequently more accurate and consistent with the Hebrew verity, and delivered
with greater clarity. However, it ought to be observed that Piscator, having
made use of the version of Junius previously, set his own analyses, notes, and
observations side by side with it, and only afterwards prepared a new version,
printed in Herborna Nassoviorum, 1646. 9. The version of Thomas Malvenda
of Spain, who superstitiously imitates the Hebrew verbatim, even indeed with
words at best absurd, obsolete, and misleading, for the sake of which,
nevertheless, he frequently places the better words in the margin, or even
among the annotations. This version has its own praise and usefulness, which is
not at all to be despised. It was produced in Lugdunus, 1650. 10. The French
Version: which is called “Genevan” by Louis de Dieu and others, having been
made by the Genevan pastors around (if I am not misled) 1560. This version
possesses no small amount of erudition and a reputation for judgment and
fidelity. 11. The English Version: this one I have most accurate knowledge of
and follow most naturally, which, by order of the most serene and most
learned King James, but by the counsel and labors of bishops and other learned
men appointed unto this work, was brought together in 1611, in which there
are many examples of great erudition and skill in the original languages, of
acumen, and of extraordinary judgment. This version frequently provided for
me the greatest help and use in the most difficult texts. 12. The Dutch
Version: which was ordered in the Synod of Dordrecht, 1618; and afterward,
by order of the States-General of Belgium, was developed by learned men,
brought together through many years of work; and finally it appeared in 1637,
also with brief notes adjoined. This version certainly answers to the Hebrew
text in no slight degree, but it manages to set forth the sense in most passages
clearly, faithfully, and soundly; and, although it is named in the last place,
nevertheless, it is not to be counted among the worst.

In spite of what has been said, the purpose was not to display all these
versions in their entirety (for that would be of immense bulk and, for the most
part, wasted labor) but only in the words and phrases that are either dubious,
or obscure, or which occur once or rarely; or where the importance of the
matter might require a more careful investigation. Moreover, concerning the
utmost usefulness of these versions, I might wish that the reader would be
taught by his own experience, rather than by my prefatory remarks.
Nevertheless, I might dare to say this: not a few dusno&hta/hard-to-be-
understood clauses of the Scripture presented themselves to me, upon which a
clearer light did shine from the versions than from all the commentaries which

39

indeed I did consult.
Now, what method I proposed to myself in carrying off this work, and

what the reader might be able to expect from me, and what I might in turn
expect from him, let the reader briefly consider.

I. What things in the authors that I regarded, by means of the rationale
of my plan and in the interests of the promised brevity, to be worthy of neglect
are almost all of these kinds: 1. Empty and pointless repetitions of the same
thing. 2. Jewish fables. 3. All of the common things suggesting themselves to
those perusing the text, such as Vatablus and others, often with fastidiousness,
heap up. 4. Private disputes of the learned and altercations over nothing,
which do not improve us with respect to the intellect or disposition. 5.
Theological controversies, with which often the more verbose interpreters
quite swamp their own commentaries. Those, as much as it seems right, I
willingly send away unto a forum for controversy and polemical writers, being
satisfied to set forward simply and accurately various opinions concerning the
sense of Scripture, among which opinions which one is true will be open to the
judicious reader without difficulty: I would not wish the noise of the
craftsman’s tools to be heard in this work more than it once was (if I might be
forgiven for saying so) in the Solomonic building program.1 6.
Kuminopri/smata/cummin-chatter, or trifles of no importance or use; a
great many such trifles present themselves in the works of Drusius, works
which are yet interspersed (lest I should defraud him of deserved praises) with a
significant number of annotations which are not at all to be despised, which I
was eager to gather. Certainly so many serious and most weighty matters were
presenting themselves to me, with which our pages were able to be filled and
furnished, that it would hardly have been expedient that they should have room
for minutia.

II. Although I was eager, insofar as I was able, and inasmuch as it was
needed, to set forth the entire Biblical Text illuminated; nevertheless, some
places I brooded and watched over more diligently. They are of such kinds: 1.
To doubtful or obscure passages, or to those difficult to be understood, and
especially to those which by the multitude of commentators are entirely
neglected or barely treated, I paid careful attention, on account of these
provoking circumstances. 2. Those passages which might appear to present an
opportunity for the enemies of Scripture and religion to scoff: not a few of this
sort the fair-minded reader will find (I hope) sufficiently elucidated and
cleared. I might wish that this one, and in my judgment most equitable,
request would be granted by those adversaries of truth: If any difficulties
present themselves here, upon which they might have hitherto been stuck, and
concerning which they might have in this work satisfactorily ascertained the

1 1 Kings 6:7.

40

resolution, then they will consider that the same sort of resolution is able to
arise concerning other difficulties, and they will not hastily pronounce them
insoluble, which they themselves are unable to solve. And since many passages
of Sacred Scripture have appeared in preceding ages to be of this sort, which,
nevertheless, the diligence of succeeding ages easily cleared; the same (as is
only right) ought to be hoped concerning others; which, although to us hitherto
they might appear difficult and involved, will perhaps by late posterity (to
whose industry it was most fitting that some things should be left) be cleared up
and explained. 3. Also those passages by which the conscience is guided in the
duties of justice and piety and our practice is ordered unto eternal life. If in
fact the end of Sacred Scripture is not qewria/ /theory, but pra~cij/practice,
not so much to make us more learned, but to improve our character; then the
pious and prudent reader will excuse me, if I deal with those from time to time
somewhat more fully; in which I neither often, nor much, trespass the limits
erected by me in the beginning.

III. I would not wish the opinions and interpretations of passages,
which occur here all together, to be embraced instead of the verities of the
passages. My work, like a gospel net, encloses all kinds of fish, in the end to be
separated by the sagacious reader, so that according to his own will he might
first make use of the good, then throw back the useless. I do not interpose my
judgment, whatever it might be, but I faithfully present the individual, warring
opinions of interpreters, supported by their own weight and arguments (for the
most part), so that the truth might shine out of the conflict and collation of the
authors. I purposely committed myself to this above all as a given in this
endeavor, so that I might protect both the spirit of the work and the work
itself, whole and uncorrupted, from the zeal of parties, and so that I might not
import my sentiments into the Scripture, but set forth only the views of
others.1

IV. I have employed greater zeal in making sure that necessary things
did not fall out, than in making sure that they were not repeated, which some
might perhaps judge to be superfluous. I do not disavow that I have inserted
more than a few things here and there, which, if I had completely yielded to my
own judgment, I might have quite omitted. But I thought to myself that the
judgments of men are no less variegated than faces and tongue; and what some
might judge to be superfluous perhaps can be viewed as necessary in the
estimation of others. To the former at least there is a ready and easy remedy:
they might pass over with a skimming eye those things which they might regard
as superfluous; if, however, those things had been left out, which might have
been viewed by others as perhaps most useful, the remedy would be difficult

1 In this present edition, Poole’s English Annotations have been spliced into the
Synopsis, so that the reader might have Poole’s judgment ready to hand.

41

and further to be sought, neither would it be possible to restore those things
without immoderate labor and great expense of time and perhaps even of
money.

V. If there were things in the authors presenting themselves as either
more ingeniously thought out or bursting with uncommon erudition (even if
not strictly and properly pertaining unto the explication of the Sacred Text),
from these I gathered as many things as possible and inserted them into my
Synopsis, lest these things, which were able (although under a different
heading) both to fascinate and to instruct, should be lost to the reader.

VI. I brought forth not only the sense of the authors, but the very
words in most cases; so that the reader might learn not only their opinions, but
also see the diversity of styles and talents. For which cause, I preferred now
and then their own words, barbarous and unfamiliar to Latin ears, over better
word choices, which easily would have been able to be substituted. However, I
reserved for myself the liberty to change words, because such a liberty greatly
serves the interests of an abridgement.

VII. Where many authors share the same opinion, I usually prefer
above the others that one from whom the others were derived; nevertheless, I
occasionally prefer that one who expresses the opinion more fully or more
eloquently.

VIII. Where the bare names of the authors occur (which are generally
assigned to the margin of the book),1 let the reader understand that they wrote
those things concerning the adjacent passage or text of Scripture. Otherwise, if
it might be done, I invoke with the name of the author the specific passage (of
the book, or chapter, etc.) whence I gathered these things.

IX. If the reader should not immediately find those things that are
worthy to be mentioned in my Synopsis, at least not in the same chapter or
verse to which they are committed by the author, I would not have him rashly
to believe these things to have been omitted by me, but rather to have been set
in a more suitable and appropriate place; for, to the one perusing this work and
applying himself, the matter will be easily accessible in more than one place.

X. If anyone does not find in the authors some things here ascribed to
them, let him not suppose these things to be fabricated by me and attached to
them; but rather let him consult diverse editions of the authors. It is normal
for things to be included in some editions, which are clearly wanting in others;
it would be easy to demonstrate this with specific names and passages.

XI. What things in the Synopsis might have been stated more
obscurely, I would not have them all to be ascribed to me, but many of them to
the authors themselves, who often obscure their own meaning. Consequently,

1 In this edition of the Synopsis, the names of the authors have been moved from the
margins and placed in the text in parentheses.

42

in passages of that sort, I set forth their own words more extensively, often
completely intact. Otherwise, I applied care and diligent labor, so that (as
much as the nature of the work might allow) I might display the sense of the
Scriptures fully and clearly; and so that my brevity (as it so often does) might
not produce obscurity.

XII. Since Sacred Scripture is the best interpreter of itself and the
comparison of texts is the preeminent help for the understanding of Sacred
Scripture, to this I most diligently attended, so that I might collect those texts
from the authors (especially the most weighty and most skilled in the Sacred
Texts, and who display them by weight, not by number) and bring them forth
with greater fullness. In the midst of which the attentive reader will discover
that a great number of the chapters and verses of the Biblical Text, which had
been corrupted in the authors by the carelessness of the printers, have been
corrected through no small effort.1

XIII. I have included the vowel points with the Hebrew words to help
the reader with less training in that language, otherwise than it is in the Nine
Volumes of Critical Interpreters of the Sacred Scripture and in most of the
other books from which I have transcribed. I have drawn out the advising of
my reader in these particulars; use will easily teach the rest.

Now, since this work has required great expenses and pains; it is most
equitable that I remember with gratitude those, who, either by counsel, or by
funds, or in other ways, have been a help to me. First, however, out of
respect, those Reverend and most learned theologians, domestic and foreign,
are to be named, who have adorned the exemplar produced by me with their
testimonies, exceedingly full of sincerity and goodwill, and they went before
my other patrons by their example and authority. Their names follow:2

The most Reverend Bishops: George of Winchester,3 John of Lichfield
and Coventry,4 Edward of Norwich,1 Seth of Salisbury,2 Edward of Carlisle,3

1 Many more corrections to the prooftexts were yet needed in the production of this
edition. Some of the corrections to be made were obvious, and so they have been
made without comment. The cases which were less clear have been annotated.
2 For those interested in this period of the English Reformation and in the life and
labors of Matthew Poole, the following list of names will repay careful attention.
3 George Morley (1597-1684) began his career as Canon of Christ Church and then
Rector of Mildenhall (1641). He proved himself to be loyal to the prelatical form of
government, engaging in efforts to resist the Parliament’s attempt to advance
Presbyterianism. Consequently, he was deprived (1647), and even imprisoned for a
brief time before leaving the shores of England. He allied himself with the cause of
Charles II and was able to regain his living and to advance to become the Bishop of
Worcester (1660) and of Winchester (1662). He was the principal representative of
the prelatic party at the Savoy Conference (1661), which Conference failed to
compose the differences between the bishops and the Nonconformist ministers.
4 John Hacket (1592-1670) was rector of St. Andrew’s and Cheam when the civil war

43

Walter of Oxford,4 John of Rochester,5 Robert of Bangor,6 John Wilkins
(S.T.P., now the Reverend Bishop of Chester),7 William Sancroft8 (Dean,
D.P.9 in London), Richard Allestree (S.T. Regius Professor of Oxford),10 John

came. He was deprived of the living of St. Andrew’s, but he retained that of Cheam
and was able to ride out the war. After the Restoration, he was installed as Bishop of
Lichfield and Coventry (1661).
1 Edward Reynolds (1599-1676), although a moderate Episcopalian, sided with the
Presbyterians during the Civil War. He sat as a member of the Assembly of Divines
(1643) and swore the Covenant (1644). Although he did reenter the prelatic
establishment after the Restoration, his ministry continued to be actuated by Puritan
principles.
2 Seth Ward (1617-1689) began his career as lecturer in mathematics at Sidney
Sussex College, Cambridge (1643). However, he was soon deprived by
parliamentary commissioners for refusing to take the Solemn League and Covenant.
He continued his career as Professor of Astronomy at Oxford, which did not require
the swearing of the Covenant. After the Restoration, he was consecrated Bishop of
Exeter (1662) and translated to Salisbury (1667). He spent an enormous amount of
money restoring the ornamentation of ecclesiastical buildings. Although he was
known for his generosity, he was quite severe with Nonconformists.
3 Edward Rainbowe (1608-1684) was a fellow of Magdalene College, Cambridge,
when he was deprived by the Parliament. After the Restoration, he was reinstated and
advanced until he was consecrated Bishop of Carlisle (1664).
4 Walter Blandford served as Vice-Chancellor of Oxford (1662) and Bishop of
Gloucester (1660), of Oxford (1665), and of Worcester (1671).
5 John Dolben (1625-1686) fought in the Civil War, siding with the Royalists. So
zealous was he for the Anglican service that he practiced it in private during the time
of its prohibition. After the Restoration, he began to ascend through the ecclesiastical
ranks, serving as the Bishop of Rochester from 1666 to 1683 and as the Archbishop of
York from 1683 to 1686.
6 Robert Morgan (1608-1673) was Bishop of Bangor from 1666 to 1673.
7 John Wilkins (1614-1672) swore the Solemn League and Covenant, and, as the War
progressed, sided with Oliver Cromwell. He served as Warden of Wadham College,
Oxford (1648). Wilkins married Cromwell’s sister, Robina, and Richard Cromwell
appointed him Master of Trinity College, Cambridge (1659). After the Restoration,
he was deprived (1660), but it was not long before he found favor with Charles II and
began to climb the ecclesiastical ladder, until he was consecrated Bishop of Chester
(1668). Wilkins was highly influential in the founding of the Royal Society.
8 William Sancroft (1616-1693) was fellow of Emanuel College, Cambridge, but
during the Civil War he was deprived (1649). After the Restoration, he began his
ecclesiastical advancement: Master of Emanuel College (1662), Dean of St. Paul’s
(1664), and Archbishop of Canterbury (1677). In 1688, Sancroft was among the
“Seven Bishops” who petitioned James II against the Declaration of Indulgence. In
1691, he was himself deprived for refusing to take the oath to William and Mary.
9 “D.P.” is an abbreviation probably for “Professor of Divinity.”
10 Richard Allestree (1619-1681) was a student at Christ Church College, Oxford,
when he joined the Royalist army. Even after returning to Oxford, he vigorously
resisted the Covenant and parliamentary visitation of the school (1648), leading to his
expulsion. He survived as a chaplain and tutor until the time of the Restoration, after

44

Lightfoot (S.T.P.), Thomas Barlow (S.T.P., and preferred to Queen’s College,
Oxford),1 Ralph Cudworth (S.T.P.),2 Richard Perinchief (S.T.P.),3 John
Owen (S.T.P.),4 Edmund Castell (S.T.P.),5 William Lloyd (S.T.P.),6 John
Tillotson (S.T.P.),7 Edward Stillingfleet (S.T.P.),1 Simon Patrick (S.T.P.),2

which he became Canon of Christ Church, lecturer, and finally Regius Professor of
Divinity at Oxford. In 1665, he took up the labor of Provost of Eton College.
1 Thomas Barlow (1607-1691) served as fellow of Queen’s College, Oxford (1635),
keeper of the Bodleian Library (1652), provost of Queen’s College (1657),
Archdeacon of Oxford (1661), and finally Bishop of Lincoln (1675). He seems to
have weathered the Civil War by emphasizing the points of his theology which were
in favor at a given time and deemphasizing those out of favor.
2 Ralph Cudworth (1617-1688) studied at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, where he
was elected fellow (1639) and Regius Professor of Hebrew (1645). He was
supportive of the Commonwealth, but, after the Restoration, he appears to have had
little difficulty accepting appointments in the established church, serving as Vicar of
Ashwell, Hertfordshire (1662), and then Prebendary of Gloucester (1678).
3 Richard Perinchief (d. 1673) was prebendary of Westminster. He shows himself to
be a faithful Royalist in his Indulgence not Justified: Being a Continuation of the
Discourse of Toleration and The Royal Martyr, or the Life and Death of King Charles
I.
4 John Owen (1616-1683) sided with the Parliament during the Civil War. However,
he did not embrace the Presbyterianism of the Westminster Assembly, preferring
Independency. He won the esteem of Oliver Cromwell, and Cromwell made him
Dean of Christ Church, Oxford (1651) and then Vice-chancellor (1652). He lost the
deanery at the Restoration. After the Restoration, Owen would suffer the vicissitudes
that accompanied his convictions, but his was the most persuasive and respected
voice for Independency and toleration. Darling: “The most eminent and learned of
the Independent divines.” Cyclopædia Bibliographica: A Library Manual of
Theological and General Literature, vol. 1 (London: 1859) 2262.
5 Edmund Castell (1606-1685) was an expert in oriental languages. He served as the
king’s chaplain and Professor of Arabic at Cambridge (1666). He spent most of his
productive years on two great works: Dr. Brian Walton’s Polyglot Bible and his own
Lexicon Heptaglotton Hebraicum, Chaldaicum, Syriacum, Samaritanum,
Æthiopicum, Arabicum, et Persicum.
6 William Lloyd (1627-1717) held a succession of preferments in the established
church after the Restoration, including the prebendary of Salisbury (1667), the
deanery of Bangor (1672), the vicarage of St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields (1676), and the
bishoprics of St. Asaph (1680), of Lichfield and Coventry (1692), and of Worcester
(1699). He opposed the Romanism of James II, supported the Glorious Revolution of
William and Mary, and was instrumental in producing several works on the history of
the English Reformation.
7 John Tillotson (1630-1694) was a member of the Presbyterian party until the Act of
Uniformity (1662). He was appointed Curate of Cheshunt, Hertfordshire (1662), and
then Rector of Kedington, Suffolk (1663). In 1664, he became Preacher to Lincoln’s
Inn and distinguished himself for tact and persuasiveness. He employed his
considerable rhetorical skills in the cause of the Protestant religion against atheism
and Romanism. He continued to rise through the ecclesiastical ranks, a rise
uninterrupted by the Glorious Revolution, until he was consecrated as Archbishop of

45

Richard Baxter,3 William Bates (S.T.P.),4 Thomas Jacomb (S.T.P.),5 Thomas
Horton (S.T.P.),6 Thomas Manton (S.T.P.),7 Benjamin Whichcote (S.T.P.),8

Canterbury (1691). He continued to attempt the reform of certain abuses in the
church until his death.
1 Edward Stillingfleet (1635-1699) held multiple preferments in the Anglican Church
after the Restoration, including the archdeaconry of London (1677), the deanery of St.
Paul’s (1678), and the bishopric of Worcester (1689). Stillingfleet was a man of
profound scholarship and of a profoundly irenic spirit, promoting the comprehension
of the Presbyterian ministers.
2 Simon Patrick (1626-1707) was a faithful son of the Church of England, holding
multiple preferments in succession and rising to the office of bishop. He was a man
of profound learning, and his exegetical (most notably, his Commentary on the
Historical and Poetical Books of the Old Testament) and devotional works were quite
influential, even among the Nonconformists. He was widely esteemed, not only for
his learning, but also for his irenic and moderate disposition.
3 Although Richard Baxter (1615-1691) did not have the benefit of a solid education
in his early years, he made thorough use of a good library to supplement what was
lacking. He entered the ministry in 1638 and grew into the duties of the office over
time. He became the minister of Kidderminster in 1640, an appointment which lasted
until after the Civil War. Although a moderate Episcopalian, Baxter sided with the
Parliament. After the Restoration, Baxter was deprived and labored (to no avail) for a
comprehension of the moderate dissenters, taking a leading role in the Savoy
Conference. He was offered a bishopric but could not accept it on the terms offered.
Baxter suffered varying degrees of toleration and persecution for the rest of his life.
4 William Bates (1625-1699) was a most eminent Nonconformist divine and
Presbyterian minister. He was ejected in 1662 with the Act of Uniformity. He labored
for a comprehension, participating in the Savoy Conference, but to no avail. He was
eventually restored to the pastorate in Hackney, where he died.
5 Thomas Jacomb (1622-1687) was a Nonconformist divine. During the Civil War,
he ministered at St. Martin, Ludgate. The Act of Uniformity deprived him of his
living.
6 Thomas Horton (1620-1673) held several academic and ecclesiastical posts during
the Civil War: Professor of Divinity at Gresham College (1641), Preacher of Gray’s
Inn (1647), and Vice Chancellor of Cambridge (1649). With the Act of Uniformity,
he was deprived, but he afterwards conformed.
7 Thomas Manton (1620-1677) was a prominent and influential member of the
Presbyterian party and a popular preacher. He was one of three scribes at the
Westminster Assembly, and he was commissioned to pen the commendatory epistle
for the Confession and Catechisms. After the Restoration, Charles II offered to make
him Dean of Rochester, but he refused and resigned the living that he had on account
of the Act of Uniformity.
8 Benjamin Whichcote (1609-1683) held both ecclesiastical and academic positions.
He served as minister at North Cadbury, Somerset (1643), and then as Provost of
King’s College, after the Parliament took control of the universities. Whichcote was
the only one who held such a position without swearing the Solemn League and
Covenant. With the Restoration, he was temporarily removed from his position until
the Act of Uniformity, which he accepted. He went on to be Minister of St. Anne’s,
Blackfriars (1662) and Vicar of St. Lawrence Jewry (1668). Whichcote was a leader

46

Ralph Bathurst (President of Trinity College, Oxford),1 John Wallis (S.T.P.,
and Professor of Geometry, Oxford).2 Now the foreign professors: Abraham
Heidanus (S.T.P., elder at Leiden),3 Johannes Cocceius (S.T.P. and pro
tempore Rector of the Academy at Leiden),4 Gisbertus Voetius (S.T.P.,
Utrecht),5 Andreas Essenius (S.T.P., Utrecht),6 Franciscus Burmannus (S.T.P.,
Utrecht).7

To these are to be added those most learned and worthy men, who
directed with the highest fidelity and diligence the management of the finances,
entrusted to them because of my guarantee of them and because of the
reputation of the subscribers; from whom three are next enumerated, in whose
praise it will perhaps be sufficient to set forward their names: Simon Patrick
(S.Th.D.),8 John Tillotson (S.Th.D.), Edward Stillingfleet (S.Th.D.). They
are joined in this duty with the following: Jacobus Langham (a most erudite

of the Cambridge Platonists and a controversial figure, denying the doctrine of total
depravity and espousing a latitudinarian toleration.
1 Ralph Bathurst (1620-1704) desired to be an Anglican priest, but the Civil War
prevented this career path. Instead, he devoted himself to medicine. He worked with
some eminent experimentalists, such as Robert Boyle and Thomas Willis.
2 John Wallis (1616-1703) was a Presbyterian minister and mathematician. He served
as chaplain at St. Gabriel, Fenchurch Street (1643) and as a scribe for the Westminster
Assembly. In 1649, he was appointed to the Savilian Chair of Geometry, Oxford.
Although he would continue to serve his church in various capacities, he is most
remembered for his achievements in mathematics, having been recognized as
instrumental in the development of modern calculus.
3 Abraham Heidanus (1597-1678) was a Dutch Calvinist Professor of Theology at the
University of Leiden (1648). He was influential in drawing Johannes Cocceius to that
university. He authored Corpus Theologiæ Christianæ (1686), and his thought shows
some Cartesian influence.
4 Johannes Cocceius (1603-1689) was born in Bremen, Germany, and went on to
become Professor of Philology at the Gymnasium in Bremen (1630), held the chair of
Hebrew (1630) and theology (1643) at Franker, and was made Professor of Theology
at Leiden (1650). He was the founder of the Cocceian school of covenant theology,
bitter rival to the Voetian school.
5 Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676) was an eminent Dutch Calvinist divine and leader of
the Nadere Reformatie (the Dutch Second Reformation). He was called to serve as
pastor in his native Heusden (1617). He later became Professor of Theology and
Oriental Languages at the University of Utrecht (1634), where he taught theology,
logic, metaphysics, and Semitic languages, including Hebrew, Arabic, and Syriac. He
was the father of the Voetian school of covenant theology, and he was involved in
controversies with the Cocceians, Arminians, and Cartesian Rationalists.
6 Andreas Essenius (1618-1677) was a Dutch Calvinist theologian. He studied under
Voetius, and he later became a professor at Utrecht (1653).
7 Franciscus Burmannus (1628-1679) was Professor of Theology at Utrecht. He was
of the Cocceian school of covenant theology.
8 “S.Th.D.” is an abbreviation of “Doctor of Sacred Theology.”

47

and refined man, Eques Auratus1), Joannes Micklethwhait and Thomas
Wharton2 (doctors of medicine in London, most celebrated for their merit),
John King3 (Armiger of the Society of the Inner Temple,4 most celebrated for
his skill in law and other good arts, to whom, on account of his prudent counsel
and tireless labors required for my sake and for the sake of the work, I
acknowledge myself to owe much).

It is also proper to acknowledge with gratitude and to honor with just
praise those who have made their goodwill toward this work most well-attested
by means of gratuitous and generous gifts. Among whom, let the most
illustrious Peter Wentworth deservedly lead the crowd, Knight of the
Honorable Order of the Bath. To you especially, O illustrious man, because of
your distinguished generosity, eternal remembrance is owed, both from me
and from all to whom our labor might be useful. You have, with those ancient
examples of heroic liberality, which had almost passed into fables through the
stinginess of the present age, revived faith: You left behind to all following a
perpetual monument of your virtue; so that our England might be able now to
boast of two Wentworths, one with respect to political science,5 the other with
respect to exceptional generosity concerning good literature, men to be
celebrated unto all generations. The notable circle of benefactors follows,
about which patrons I am able and ought to boast: Orlando Bridgman, Eques
Auratus and Baronet, Privy Counselor to the King and Keeper of the Great Seal
of England; Edward, Earl of Manchester, Privy Counselor to the King and Lord
Chamberlain of the Royal Household; John, Earl of Bridgwater, Privy
Counselor to the King; Arthur, Earl of Donegal, Privy Counselor to the King in
the Kingdom of Ireland; John Hacket, the Reverend Bishop of Lichfield and
Coventry; John Robarts, Baron of Truro, Privy Counselor to the King, and
Viceroy of Ireland; Robert Brooke, Baron; Lord Thomas Fairfax, Baron of
Cameron; William Morice, Eques Auratus, Privy Counselor to the King;
Walter Saint John, Baronet; Gilbert Gerhard, Baronet; John Barnard, Eques
Auratus; Thomas Grove, Armiger; William Corteene, Armiger; Samuel Smith,

1 Eques Auratus could be translated as Golden Knight; such were allowed to gild their
armor.
2 Thomas Wharton (1614-1673) was an anatomist. He obtained his medical degree in
1647 and was elected to the Royal College of Physicians in 1650.
3 Sir John King (1639-1677) was a lawyer, descended from a Huguenot family in
Rouen France. He joined the Inner Temple in 1660 and was admitted to the bar in
1667. He was made a king’s counselor and attorney general to the Duke of York. He
was knighted in 1674.
4 The Society of the Inner Temple was formed for the housing and training of
lawyers.
5 This Peter Wentworth (1530-1596) was a member of the House of Commons. He
contended earnestly and bravely for the rights and liberties of Parliament against
Elizabeth’s ever-expanding royal prerogative.

48

Armiger; Henricus Spurstow, Armiger; Simon Patrick, S.T.P.; Richard
Colinge, Armiger; John Cooke, Armiger.

To these, who, for my sake and for the sake of the work, contributed
money for printing of more copies, are to be subjoined: Jonathan Keate, Eques
Auratus and Baronet; Andrew Rickard, Eques Auratus; John Hewly, Eques
Auratus; Francis Rolle, Eques Auratus; Daniel Farington, Armiger; John Davy,
merchant. There are others, whom it has not yet been granted to me to know;
and there are all those, who by their tireless labors administered the aid of
others. From the naming of all these I am compelled to desist, lest this preface
become immense.

Nevertheless, those most illustrious men, who most generously shared
some of their own thoughts and collections with me, are not to be passed over:
1. John Wilkins, S.T.P., now the most Reverend Bishop of Chester: to
rehearse completely the most deserved praises of him would be to light an oil
lamp before the sun. 2. Thomas Brogrove of Hartford, Baronet, who adorned
his rank in no common way with sound scholarship and the highest virtues. 3.
John Lightfoot, S.T.P.: most noted in the world for his works, most famous
and most full of arcane knowledge. 4. The most erudite John Palmer,1
Archdeacon of Northampton. 5. Thomas Guidott, physician at Bathe,2 most
learned and famous. What each might have supplied, I have judged it
unnecessary to relate here, since those distinctive contributions are identified in
their proper places of the Synopsis.

Although divine mercy won over to me many patrons and roused other
men, men most renowned in the whole of England and the educated world,
who were most kindly lending an obstetrical hand to my efforts, I have endured
adversaries, neither few nor inactive, who have slandered me with a thousand
reproaches and calumnies and have tried to subvert thoroughly my design in its
very infancy. But I do not wish to call again to mind those squalls, which the
gracious providence of God easily dissipated. Those blows, the unavoidable
concomitants of labors of a certain kind, were naturally foreseen by me, the
repetition of which I even now expect. Perhaps there will be no lack of those
who will read my Synopsis for the purpose for which Julian3 read the Sacred
Scriptures, so that they might have knowledge of that which they would be

1 John Palmer (1612-1679) was Rector of Ecton in Northamptonshire (1641-1679)
and Archdeacon of Northampton (1665-1679).
2 Thomas Guidott (1638-1706) was a physician, renowned in his own day, who wrote
several works on the town of Bathe and its famous springs.
3 Julian the Apostate (331-363) was the last pagan Emperor of Rome. He was raised
as a Christian, but he rejected Christianity in favor of Theurgy, a form of
Neoplatonism. He sought to revive paganism and reduce the influence of
Christianity. He died after a battle with Persian forces, and it is said that his dying
words were, Vicisti, Galilæe, Thou hast conquered, O Galilean.