But do the Critics in question prove that they must?
For unless they do, there is no help for it but the _pericope de adultera_ must be left where it is.
I proceed to shew first, that it is impossible, on any rational principle to dislodge these twelve verses from their actual context .-- Next, I shall point out that the facts adduced in evidence and relied on by the assailants of the passage, do not by any means prove the point they are intended to prove; but admit of a sufficient and satisfactory explanation .-- Thirdly, it shall be shewn that the said explanation carries with it, and implies, a weight of testimony in support of the twelve verses in dispute, which is absolutely overwhelming .-- Lastly, the positive evidence in favour of these twelve verses shall be proved to outweigh largely the negative evidence, which is relied upon by those who contend for their removal.

To some people I may seem to express myself with too much confidence.

Let it then be said once for all, that my confidence is inspired by the strength of the arguments which are now to be unfolded.

When the Author of Holy Scripture supplies such proofs of His intentions, I cannot do otherwise than rest implicit confidence in them.
Now I begin by establishing as my first proposition that, (1) _These twelve verses occupied precisely the same position which they now occupy from the earliest period to which evidence concerning the Gospels reaches._ And this, because it is a mere matter of fact, is sufficiently established by reference to the ancient Latin version of St.John's Gospel.

We are thus carried back to the second century of our era: beyond which, testimony does not reach.