{1.52} It is very remarkable indeed that John, under whose name the above dictum has been transmitted, had no particular vision for himself alone. Cf. I. Cor. xv. 5, 8. {1.53} John xx. 26. The passage xxi. 14 supposes it is true that there were only two apparitions at Jerusalem before the assembled disciples. But the passages xx. 30, and xxi. 25, give us far more latitude. Compare _Acts_ 1, 3. {1.54} Luke xxiv. 41, 43; Gospel of the Hebrews, in St. Jerome, _De Viris Illustribus_, 2; conclusion of Mark, in St. Jerome, _Adv. Pelag._, ii. CHAPTER II. [2.1] Matt. xxviii. 7; Mark xvi. 7. [2.2] Matt. xxviii. 10. [2.3] Ibid. xxvi. 32. [2.4] Matt. xxviii. 16; John xxi.; Luke xxiv. 49, 50, 52, and the _Acts_ i. 3, 4, are here in flagrant contradiction to Mark xvi. 1-8, and Matthew. The second conclusion of Mark (xvi. 9, et seq.), and even of the two others which are not a part of the received text, appeared to be included in the system of Luke. But this cannot avail in opposition to the harmony of a portion of the synoptical tradition with the fourth Gospel, and even indirectly with Paul (I. Cor. xv. 5-8), on this point. [2.5] Matt. xxviii. 16. [2.6] Ibid, xxviii. 7; Mark xvi. 7. [2.7] Conclusion of Mark, in St. Jerome, _Adv. Pelag._ ii. [2.8] Matt. xxviii. 16. [2.9] John xxi. 2, et seq. [2.10] The author of the _Acts_ i. 14, makes them remain at Jerusalem until the Ascension. But this agrees with his systematic determination (Luke xxiv. 49; _Acts_ i. 4), not to allow of a journey into Galilee after the resurrection (a theory contradicted by Matthew and by John). To be consistent in this theory he is compelled to place the Ascension at Bethany, in which he is contradicted by all the other traditions. [2.11] I. Cor. xv. 5, et seq. [2.12] John xxxi. 1, et seq. This chapter has been added to the already completed Gospel, as a postscript. But it is from the same pen as the rest.