Saviour. ^Believing on Christ's name is exactly this faith of reliance, and is the faith that saves and justifies.
13, — [ Which luere horn, &c., &c....of Godi\ The birth here spoken of is the new birth, or rep-eneration, that complete change of heart and nature which takes place in a'man when he becomes a real Christian. It is a change so great that no other figure but that of birth can fully express it. It is as when a new being, with new appetites, wants, and desires is brought into the world. A person born of Grod is " a new creature, old things are passed away, behold all things are become new." (2 Cor. V. 17.)
The persons who believe on Christ's name are said to be born " not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." The interpretation of this expression which is usually given by commentators appears to me neither correct nor seemly. The true meaning of the words, I believe, is this. BeHevers did not become what they are " by blood," that is by descent from Abraham or blood connection with godly people. Grace does not descend from parent to child. — Nor yet did believers become what they are by the will of the flesh, — that is by the efforts and exertions of their own natural hearts. Nature can never change itself. " That which is born of the flesh is flesh." — Nor yet did believers become what they are by the will of man, — that is by the acts and deeds of others. Neither ordained ministers, nor any one else, can confer grace upon another. Man cannot regenerate hearts. — Believers become v/hat they are solely and entirely by the grace of God. It is to God's free grace, preventing, calling, converting, renew- ing and sanctifying, that they owx their new birth. They are born of God, or, as the third chapter says more distinctly, " born of the Spirit."
The word which w^e render "blood," in the singular number, is, in the Greek, plural, " bloods." — This peculiarity has made gome conjecture that the expression refers to the blood shed in circumcision and sacrifice, and teaches the inability of these things to regenerate man. But this idea seems far-fetched and improbable. The use of the plural number appears to me intended to exclude aU fleshly confidence in any descent or rela- tionship. It was neither the blood of Abraham, or of David, or of Aaron, or of Judah, or of Levi, which could give grace or make any one a child of God.
This is the first time the new birth is spoken of by name in Scripture. Let us not fail to notice how carefully the doctrine is fenced against errors, and how emphatically we are told what this new birth does not come from, as well as what it does come from. It is a strikins: fact that when St. Peter mentions the