In ver. 4, and the first part of this verse, the writer had invoked grace from the Father, the Spirit, and the Saviour. In the latter clause of the verse there commences an ascription of praise to the Redeemer; an ascription to him particularly, because the whole book is regarded as a revelation from him (ver. 1); because he was the one who especially appeared to John in the visions of Patmos; and because he was to be the great agent in carrying into execution the purposes revealed in this book. ¶ _And washed us from our sins in his own blood._ He has removed the pollution of sin from our souls by his blood; that is, his blood has been applied to cleanse us from sin. Blood can be represented as having a cleansing power _only_ as it makes an expiation for sin, for considered literally its effect would be the reverse. The language is such as would be used only on the supposition that he had made an atonement, and that it was _by_ the atonement that we are cleansed; for in what sense could it be said of a martyr that he “had washed us from our sins in his blood?” How could this language be used of Paul or Polycarp; of Ridley or Cranmer? The doctrine that the blood of Christ _cleanses_ us from sin, or _purifies_ us, is one that is common in the Scriptures. Comp. 1 Jn. i. 7; He. ix. 14. The specific idea of _washing_, however――representing that blood as _washing_ sin away――is one which does not elsewhere occur. It is evidently used in the sense of _cleansing_ or _purifying_, as we do this by _washing_, and as the blood of Christ accomplishes in respect to our souls, what washing with water does in respect to the body. 6 And hath made us [66]kings and priests unto God and his Father; [67]to him _be_ glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.