The assumption that this epistle was not designed specially for any one church, but intended equally for all the churches in that part of Asia Minor, has met with more favour. This view, first suggested by Archbishop Usher, has been adopted, variously modified, by Bengel, Benson, Michælis, Eichhorn, Koppe, Hug, Flatt, Guericke, Neander, Olshausen and many others. The great objection to it is the overwhelming authority in favour of the reading ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in the salutation, and the unanimous testimony of the early church. Perhaps the most probable solution of the problem is, that the epistle was written to the Ephesians and addressed to them, but being intended specially for the Gentile Christians as a class, rather than for the Ephesians as a church, it was designedly thrown into such a form as to suit it to all such Christians in the neighbouring churches, to whom no doubt the apostle wished it to be communicated. This would account for the absence of any reference to the peculiar circumstances of the saints in Ephesus. This seems to have been substantially the opinion of Beza, who says: Suspicor non tam ad Ephesios ipsos proprie missam epistolam, quam ad Ephesum, ut ad cæteras Asiaticas ecclesias transmitteretur.

Charles Hodge’s Commentary on Ephesians

In Westminster Hall, on the 20th of January, the King was summoned to answer to the impeachment of being ‘a tyrant, traitor, murderer, and a public and implacable enemy of the Commonwealth of England.’ . . . At length the court resolved that Charles was guilty and should die.

J. K. Hewison, The Covenanters, Vol. 1, 438.

The benediction reminds us that Revelation is a letter, and that its lessons are to be personally appropriated. Only by the grace of the Lord Jesus can that victory be gained which will receive the recompense portrayed in this book. It behoves us to open our lives to it continually, and to add our own Amen.

“Revelation” by George R. Beasley–Murray in New Bible Commentary, p. 1455.

May my writing serve this end, to make you mistrust those novel theories upon, or rather against, the gospels, which would persuade you that the glorious details which the gospels give us of our gracious Saviour are founded on ignorance or deceit. The gospels, like the Only-Begotten of the Father, will endure as long as human nature itself, while the discoveries of this pretended wisdom must sooner or later disappear as soap-bubbles. He who has made shipwreck of his own faith and fallen away to the flesh, cannot endure to see others trusting in their Saviour. Do not, then, let yourself be disturbed by their clamor, but rather hold firmly what you have, the more others assail it. Do not think that we are dubious about the final victory of truth. For this result there is One pledged to whom the whole world is mere feebleness. All that concerns our duty is, to bear testimony to the truth, to the best of our ability, and that not for victory, but for conscience’ sake.

When Were our Gospels Written? AN ARGUMENT BY CONSTANTINE TISCHENDORF. WITH A NARRATIVE OF THE DISCOVERY OF THE SINAITIC MANUSCRIPT.

The rule of the Church is Infant Baptism. She brings children even in their tenderest years within her Fold and there trains them up “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” . . . That the Church of England had no form for the Baptism of Adults previous to the year 1661 is not only an interesting fact, but it is also one of those historic side-lights which brings into bold relief what was the custom of the Church from time immemorial.

“Adult Baptism” in American Church Dictionary and Cyclopedia

Ὁ . . . ποιοῦσιν is omitted in many mss. (Alexandrian and Western), though included by many too (SBLGNT; brackets in UBS). The prayer is not found in the other Gospels so that may be the reason for its omission by some scribes (and it may have been viewed as contrary to 23:28–31). Internal evidence, such as the sim. prayer [Lk, p. 365] by Stephen (Acts 7:60) and the Lukan theme of forgiveness, supports the original inclusion of the prayer (see Bock 1867–68; Bovon 3.307; Marshall 867–68; e.g., 6:28). Ἄφες, see 6:42 (here, “forgive”). The dat. αὐτοῖς may be a dat. of advantage or complement (BHGNT 721). Οἴδασιν, see 11:44. Ποιοῦσιν, see 6:33 (e.g., 23:31). Διαμεριζόμενοι (nom. pl. masc. of pres. mid. ptc. of διαμερίζω, “divide”) may be temp. (Nolland 1141), or express purpose (“cast lots to divide” NRSV, ESV; Bock 1841). Ἔβαλον, see 21:4. Κλήρους acc. pl. masc. of κλῆρος, -ου, ὁ, “lots” (most EVV; BDAG 548b; “dice” NLT, NET).

Commentary on Luke 23:34 (Alan J. Thompson, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament: Luke)

The world bears the Gospel a grudge because the Gospel condemns the religious wisdom of the world. Jealous for its own religious views, the world in turn charges the Gospel with being a subversive and licentious doctrine, offensive to God and man, a doctrine to be persecuted as the worst plague on earth. As a result we have this paradoxical situation: The Gospel supplies the world with the salvation of Jesus Christ, peace of conscience, and every blessing. Just for that the world abhors the Gospel.

From Luther’s Introduction (1538), Commentary on Galatians

The covenant promise affords the only certain and objective ground for the baptism of infants. But if the question is raised, how infant baptism can function as a means of grace to strengthen spiritual life, the answer is that it can at the very moment of its administration strengthen the regenerate life, if already present in the child, and can strengthen faith later on when the significance of baptism is more clearly understood. Its operation is not necessarily limited to the very moment of its administration.

Berkhof’s Summary of Doctrine

Infant baptism is not based on a single passage of Scripture, but on a series of considerations. The covenant made with Abraham was primarily a spiritual covenant, though it also had a national aspect, Rom. 4:16-18; Gal. 3:8-9, 14. This covenant is still in force and is essentially the same as the “new covenant” of the present dispensation, Rom. 4:13-18; Gal. 3:15-18; Heb. 6:13-18. Children shared in the blessings of the covenant, received the sign of circumcision, and were reckoned as part of the congregation if Israel, II Chron. 20:13; Joel 2:16. In the New Testament baptism is substituted for circumcision as the sign and seal of entrance into the covenant, Acts 2:39; Col. 2:11-12. The “new covenant” is represented in Scripture as more gracious than the old, Isa. 54:13; Jer. 31:34; Heb. 8:11, and therefore could hardly exclude children. This is also unlikely in view of such passages as Matt. 19:14; Acts 2:39; I Cor. 7:14. Moreover, whole households were baptized and it is unlikely that these contained no children, Acts 16:15; 16:33; I Cor. 1:16.

Berkhof’s Summary of Doctrine

The Church is commissioned to guard the truth, to hand it on faithfully from generation to generation, and to defend it against all forces of unbelief, I Tim 1:3-4; II Tim 1:13; Tit. 1:9-11. It must preach the Word unceasingly among all the nations of the world, Isa. 3:10-11; II Cor 5:20; I Tim 4:13; II Tim 2:15; 4:2; Tit 2:1-10, must draw up creeds and confessions, and must provide for the training of its future ministers, II Tim 2:2.

Berkhof’s Summary of Doctrine