I contend that on all intelligent principles of sound Criticism the passage before us must be maintained to be genuine Scripture; and that without a particle of doubt I cannot even admit that 'it has been transmitted to us under circumstances widely different from those connected with any other passage of Scripture whatever[592].' I contend that it has been transmitted in precisely the same way as all the rest of Scripture, and therefore exhibits the same notes of genuineness as any other twelve verses of the same Gospel which can be named: but--like countless other places--it is found for whatever reason to have given offence in certain quarters: and in consequence has experienced very ill usage at the hands of the ancients and of the moderns also:--but especially of the latter.

In other words, these twelve verses exhibit the required notes of genuineness _less conspicuously_ than any other twelve consecutive verses in the same Gospel.

But that is all.

The one only question to be decided is the following:--On a review of the whole of the evidence,--is it more reasonable to stigmatize these twelve verses as a spurious accretion to the Gospel?
Or to admit that they must needs be accounted to be genuine ?...

I shall shew that they are at this hour supported by a weight of testimony which is absolutely overwhelming.