The exposition is well written and clear; but it is not in itself of much value. The text on which he comments is very faulty: for instance, in the Blessing of Reuben, instead of the words “the excellency of dignity and the excellency of power,” it has “durus conversatione, et durus, temerarius.” When Rufinus adheres to the plain interpretation of the passage his comments are sensible and clear; but he soon passes to the mystic sense: Reuben is God’s first-born people, the Jews, and the couch which he defiles is the law of the Old Testament; and the moral interpretation is grounded on the supposed meaning of Reuben, “the Son who is seen,” that is the visible, carnal man, who breaks through the law. So, in Judah’s “binding his foal to the vine,” the explanation given as he says, by the Jews, that the vines will be so plentiful that they are used even for tying up the young colts, is dismissed.