excerpts from

a commentary upon the divine revelation

of the apostle and evangelist john

by david pareus, Professor of Divinity, University of Heidelberg

Translated out of the Latin into English by Elias Arnold, 1644

        I had thought indeed never to have set forth this Commentary upon the Revelation, which I long since expounded in the Academy in 188 Lectures, but to have left the same unto my children for their proper use, especially since I realized I had not attained to adequate knowledge of the many mysteries contained therein. Meanwhile, I thought it requisite to search out, with all diligence, the judgments of more learned Interpreters in the harder matters……

Notwithstanding, it happened of late, I know not by what providence, that at length I assented to the publishing thereof, at the earnest request of friends who judged it an unfit thing that the Church be deprived of this treasure, of whatever worth. They were convinced that this work shed new light on the mysteries of the Revelation.

Additionally, these same friends argued that the time was especially ripe for use of my Commentary by the Church because of the preponderance of publicly depraved new feigned Oracles and false Glosses, as if the Revelation did prove and authorize Romish Idolatry, and patronize Popish Tyranny. Rather than give license to the aforementioned the Revelation portends nothing but new and fashionable evils upon the Godly and most miserable calamities unto the Church, which it sets forth in lively colors, the very Kingdom of Antichrist himself, under the types of a Beast and False Prophet……

I dedicate this work unto none other, save unto my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ….

I am not the first to expound the Beast. Neither was the Apostle John the first to show Antichrist at Rome. For before him Paul testified that the son of perdition should sit in the Temple of God as God, that is, claiming the primacy in the Church; for even then the mystery of iniquity was working, though it was presently withheld by the Roman Empire, as Chrysostom, Ambrose and Jerome interpret it. That Empire was then to weaken after being translated to the East, following which time it was destroyed.

Irenæus, a most ancient writer said that the numeral name of the Beast in all likelihood should be Lateinos – Λατεινος – and as if he had been a divine Prophet foretelling the apostasy of the Latin Church, he expressly added the words: ‘but in this we will not boast.’

The Roman Pope, Gregory I, confidently affirmed that that priest should be Antichrist, or Antichrist’s forerunner, who styled himself universal, pointing as with the finger at Boniface III, his successor, for as Gregory said, ‘the king of pride is at hand and that which is not lawful to be spoken, an Army of Priests is prepared.

Many more witnesses after the time of Gregory I will be brought forth in Chapter 13, who will all affirm that Rome was to be the seat of Antichrist, and the Pope, with his double-sword, the very Antichrist himself. Wherefore Cardinal Bellarmine said, not out of ignorance, but malice, ‘that by us Protestants the Pope first began to be called Antichrist.’[3] …Wherefore thou, O Pope, hear this truth and repent before the hand of the Heavenly Conqueror lay hold on thee, and cast thee into the Lake of Fire and Brimstone…Hath not the Apostle Paul sufficiently noted that thou art he that sitteth in the Temple of God as God? Why then should you not suspect that it is you, considering what you do and all you have? Your two horns like the Lambs; the two keys and two swords in your hand; the Triple Crown on your head; the mysteries in your forehead; the image which you cause the inhabitants of the earth to worship, killing those who refuse to do it; the name and number of thy name; the Mass and Latin Liturgy; the whorish woman sitting upon Seven Mountains – now should you not suspect yourself with all these similarities to the Antichrist?....

READ MORE