authorship of the book; (d) that a spurious work could not have been palmed upon the world as the production of John; (e) that he bears unequivocal testimony to the fact that it was written by John; (f) and that he speaks of the “most exact” copies being then in existence, and testified to by those who had seen John himself. MELITO.――Lardner, ii. 157‒160. He was bishop of Sardis, one of the churches to which the book of Revelation was directed. He is supposed to have flourished about A.D. 170. He was a man greatly distinguished for learning and piety, and Jerome says that Christians were accustomed to name him a _prophet_. He was, moreover, remarkably inquisitive respecting the sacred books; and, at the request of Onesimus, he made extracts from the Scriptures respecting the Messianic prophecies, and also a complete list of the books of the Old Testament, which is still extant in Eusebius, _Ecc. Hist._ iv. 26. He wrote a _Treatise_ or _Commentary on the Book of Revelation_. Dr. Lardner says of this, “What it contained we are not informed. I will say it was a commentary on that book. It is plain he ascribed that book to John, and very likely to John the apostle. I think it very probable he esteemed it a book of canonical authority.” Hug says (p. 653), “Melito himself calls it the Apocalypse of John.” Even Michaelis (_Intro. to the New Testament_, iv. 466) reckons Melito among the witnesses in favour of the book. The _value_ of this testimony is this: (a) Melito was bishop of one of the churches to which the Apocalypse was directed; (b) he lived near the time of John; (c) he was a diligent student on this very subject; (d) he had every opportunity of ascertaining the truth on the subject; (e) he regarded it as the work of the apostle John; (f) and he wrote a treatise or commentary on it as an inspired book. It is not easy to conceive of stronger testimony in favour of the book. THEOPHILUS.――Lardner, ii. 203‒215. He was bishop of Antioch, and flourished about A.D. 169‒180. He wrote a work against the “heresy” of Hermogenes, referred to by Eusebius, _Ecc. Hist._ iv. 24. In that work he expressly speaks of the Apocalypse as the production of John; and Lardner {xxxiv} says of his testimony, “That the book of Revelation was owned by him is undoubted from Eusebius. Eusebius has assured us that Theophilus, in his book against Hermogenes, brought testimonies from the Apocalypse of John,” pp. 214, 215. The value of this testimony is, that Theophilus doubtless expressed the current opinion of his time, and that he had ample opportunity for ascertaining the truth. There is also a passage in the writings of Theophilus which _seems_ to be a direct allusion to the book of Revelation: “This Eve, because she was deceived by the serpent――the evil demon, who is also called Satan, who thus spoke to her by the serpent――does not cease to accuse; this demon is also called the dragon.” Comp. Rev. xii. 9.