stronghold, which was Jerusalem.

[Footnote 1: They, however, imply them obscurely (Matt. xxiii. 37;
Luke xiii. 34). They knew as well as John the relation of Jesus with
Joseph of Arimathea. Luke even (x. 38-42) knew the family of Bethany.
Luke (ix. 51-54) has a vague idea of the system of the fourth Gospel
respecting the journeys of Jesus. Many discourses against the
Pharisees and the Sadducees, said by the synoptics to have been
delivered in Galilee, have scarcely any meaning, except as having been
given at Jerusalem. And again, the lapse of eight days is much too
short to explain all that happened between the arrival of Jesus in
that city and his death.]

[Footnote 2: Two pilgrimages are clearly indicated (John ii. 13, and
v. 1), without speaking of his last journey (vii. 10), after which
Jesus returned no more to Galilee. The first took place while John was
still baptizing. It would belong consequently to the Easter of the
year 29. But the circumstances given as belonging to this journey are
of a more advanced period. (Comp. especially John ii. 14, and
following, and Matt. xxi. 12, 13; Mark xi. 15-17; Luke xix. 45, 46.)
There are evidently transpositions of dates in these chapters of John,
or rather he has mixed the circumstances of different journeys.]

The little Galilean community were here far from being at home.
Jerusalem was then nearly what it is to-day, a city of pedantry,
acrimony, disputes, hatreds, and littleness of mind. Its fanaticism
was extreme, and religious seditions very frequent. The Pharisees were
dominant; the study of the Law, pushed to the most insignificant
minutiae, and reduced to questions of casuistry, was the only study.
This exclusively theological and canonical culture contributed in no
respect to refine the intellect. It was something analogous to the
barren doctrine of the Mussulman fakir, to that empty science
discussed round about the mosques, and which is a great expenditure of
time and useless argumentation, by no means calculated to advance the
right discipline of the mind. The theological education of the modern
clergy, although very dry, gives us no idea of this, for the
Renaissance has introduced into all our teachings, even the most
irregular, a share of _belles lettres_ and of method, which has
infused more or less of the _humanities_ into scholasticism. The
science of the Jewish doctor, of the _sofer_ or scribe, was purely
barbarous, unmitigatedly absurd, and denuded of