he supposes to be implied in 1 Pet. i. 3, 23; with which he connects 1 Pet. iii. 21. The
fourth stage of development he regards as embodied in the words of St. John iii. 5. All
these hypotheses - for they are no more than such - are built on Justin 's omission of the
word 'water,' which, as Dr. Abbott argues, proves that Justin must have been
unacquainted with the fourth Gospel, since otherwise it were impossible that, when
expressly treating of Baptism, he should have omitted it. To us, on the other hand, the
opposite seems the legitimate inference. Treating confessedly of Baptism, it was only
necessary for his argument, which identified regeneration with Baptism, to introduce the
reference to the Spirit. Otherwise the quotation is so exactly that from the fourth Gospel,
including even the objection of Nicodemus, that it is almost impossible to imagine that so
literal a transcription could have originated otherwise than from the fourth Gospel itself,
and that it is the result of a supposed series of d evelopments in which Justin would
represent the second, and the fourth Gospel the fourth stage. But besides, the attentive
reader of the chapter in Justin's Apology cannot fail to remark that Justin represents a
later, and not an earlier, stage than the fo urth Gospel. For, with Justin, Baptism and
regeneration are manifestly identified, not with renovation of our nature, but with the
forgiveness of sins.
Dangerous as it may be to indulge the imagination, we can almost picture the scene. The
report of what passed reads, more than almost any other in the Gospels, like notes taken
at the time by one who was present. We can almost put it again into the form of brief
notes, by heading what each said in this manner, Nicodemus : - or, Jesus :. They are only
the outlines of the conversation, given, in each case, the really important gist, and leaving
abrupt gaps between, as would be the manner in such notes. Yet quite sufficient to tell us
all that is important for us to know. We can scarcely doubt that it was the narrator, John,
who was the witness that took the notes. His own reflections upon it, or rather his
afterlook upon it, in the light of later facts, and under the teaching of the Holy Ghost, is
described in the verses with which the writer follows his account of what had passed
between Jesus and Nicodemus (St. John iii. 16-21). In the same manner he winds up with
similar reflections (ib. vv. 31-36) the reported conversation between the Baptist and his
disciples. In neither case are the verses to which we refer, part of what either Jesus or
John said at the time, but what, in view of it, John says in name of, and to the Church of
the New Testament.11
11. For detailed examination and proof I must here refer the reader to Canon Westcott's
Commentary.
If from St. John xix. 27 we might infer that St. John had 'a home' in Jerusalem itself -
which, considering the simplicity of living at the time, and the cost of houses, would not
necessarily imply that he was rich - the scene about to be described would have taken
place under the roof of him who has given us its record. In any case, the circumstances of
life at the time are so well known, that we have no difficulty in realising the
surroundings. It was night - one of the nights in that Easter week so full of marvels.
Perhaps we may be allowed to suppose that, as so often in analogous circumstances, the
spring-wind, sweeping up the narrow streets of the City, had suggested the comparison, 12
13
which was so full of deepest teaching of Nicodemus. Up in the simply furnished Aliyah
- the guest-chamber on the roof, the lamp was still burning, and the Heavenly Guest still
busy with thought and words. There was no need for Nicodemus to pass through the
house, for an outside stair led to the upper room. It was night, when Jewish superstition
would keep men at home; a wild, gusty spring night, when loiterers would not be in the