Origin of the work:
A reply to Samuel Maresius in a polemic on chiliasm.
The Reformist theologian Samuel Maresius, in an academic dissertation, presented Comenius incidentally as an example of an advocate of chiliasm. An unknown supporter evidently coerced Comenius into this response, which he later came to regret. Previously there had been a pleasant relationship between the two men, which has first become strained when Comenius had provided Maresius with the worked up part of the General Consultation (the Consultatio) for comment. Maresius in his assessment had labelled Comenius’ conciliatory opinions an example of the appalling theologies of the reformers of the world, in which Archimedes’ point was missing, and who were stubborn in defending their erroneous views. Comenius in his response upbraids Maresius for jealousy without a knowledge of love in his prosecution of the debate; nor did he like the title of the dissertation. He regards Maresius’ behaviour as rash, and his judgements as insufficient.
For further study, see also:
J. V. Novák & J. Hendrich, Jan Amos Komenský, jeho život a spisy. Prague 1932, pp653-656
Jan Kumpera, Jan Amos Komenský, poutník na rozhraní věků. Prague & Ostrava 1992, p228