Andrew Willet's Synopsis papismi was among the most celebrated works of anti-Roman Catholic polemic of its day. First published in 1592, it had reached its fifth edition by 1634. Its subtitle gives a good flavour of its contents, and of Willet's religious stance: ‘A generall viewe of papistry wherein the whole mysterie of iniquitie, and summe of antichristian doctrine is set downe, which is maintained this day by the Synagogue of Rome, against the Church of Christ, together with an antithesis of the true Christian faith, and an antidotum or counterpoyson out of the Scriptures, against the whore of Babylons filthy cuppe of abominations.’ Although there is no evidence that Willet ever failed to conform, he was undoubtedly a friend of the godly and pressed, in print, for further reform, after the accession of James i. These efforts produced such a hostile reaction that Willet chose to focus the remainder of his writing career on producing biblical commentaries. A work on 1 Samuel (1607) was followed by commentaries on Genesis (1608), Exodus (1608), Daniel (1610), Romans (1611), 2 Samuel (1614) and Leviticus (posthumously published in 1631). Darren Pollock's clearly argued analysis of the Romans Hexapla demonstrates, however, that Willet's mid-career turn towards biblical commentary did not involve a turn away from religious polemic but rather the continuation of that polemic by other means. A helpful introduction locates Willet's Romans commentary in its historical and exegetical context, and makes a convincing case that early modern biblical commentary has often been neglected by historians of theology. This opening chapter is followed by a series of essays which discuss Willet's approach to issues of text and translation, to grammar and rhetoric, to causality, as well as his use of both ancient heresy and the Church Fathers in the interpretation of the text. Pollock delves into Willet's detailed textual and doctrinal discussions with confidence, and examines his appropriation of previous exegetical work, both Protestant and Roman Catholic. He argues persuasively that Willet's polemical approach to the biblical text was not incompatible with informed textual scholarship. Pollock also underlines that Willet's engagement with earlier Reformed commentaries on Romans was both flexible and critical, enabling him to respond to a polemical landscape reshaped by Cardinal Bellarmine, in particular. Given that Willet had been prompted to focus on biblical commentary by a bruising engagement over English church polity, it is perhaps regrettable that Pollock does not explore how the Romans Hexapla bore upon those discussions; although his emphasis on anti-Roman Catholic polemic undoubtedly reflects Willet's own priorities. Early Stuart polemical hermeneutics makes an interesting and scholarly contribution to the field of early Stuart church history, and provides welcome encouragement to scholarly engagement with early modern biblical commentary.