4. _Internal Evidence_—(_a_) Christ’s merciful treatment of the adulteress harmonizes beautifully with His declaration immediately after (viii. 15), that at His first coming He condemned no man. (_b_) It is inconceivable how a passage _of this nature_ could ever have found its way into so many MSS., unless it was written by St. John. On the other hand, it is easy to see how, though genuine, it came to be omitted in many MSS., through the fear that Christ’s merciful treatment of the adulteress might encourage sinners. This is exactly what St. Augustine says:—“Nonnulli modicae fidei, vel potius inimici verae fidei, credo metuentes peccandi impunitatem dari mulieribus suis, illud quod de adulterae indulgentia Dominus fecit, abstulerunt de codicibus suis, quasi permissionem peccandi tribuerit qui dixit: ‘Jam deinceps noli peccare’ ” (St. Aug., _De Conj. Adult._, 2, 7). As regards the arguments _against_ the passage, we believe that the reason given by St. Augustine in the words just quoted, explains the absence of the passage in so many MSS., versions, and fathers. As to the internal arguments against the passage, it must be admitted that a number of words are used here which are not met with elsewhere in the writings of St. John; but then the subject is peculiar, and besides in many other passages which are unquestioned, we meet with several words not used elsewhere by the Evangelist.(65) Even Renan admits that there is nothing in the passage that is at variance with the style of the fourth Gospel.(66) Conclusion. From the evidence, which has been impartially laid before the reader, we hold we are justified in concluding that even on mere critical grounds the passage is more probably genuine. Some, as Franzelin (_De Sacra. Script._, Thes. xix., pp. 466, 467), go farther, and hold, that since the decree of the Council of Trent (Sess. iv.), which defined all the sacred books of the Bible, and _all their parts_, as found in the Latin Vulgate, to be canonical, it is not lawful for any Catholic to question the authenticity of this passage. They argue that this passage constitutes a _part_ (not merely a “particula”) of the Gospel of St. John, and is, therefore, covered by the decree of Trent. Nor can it be said in reply that the Council, in the words “cum omnibus suis partibus,” meant to define the authenticity of the Deuterocanonical fragments of the _Old_ Testament only, for the Acts(67) of the Council show that these words were intended to refer especially to the fragments of the Gospels. To conclude, then, we hold that we are not only critically justified in accepting John vii. 53‐viii. 11, as authentic, but that it is extremely probable that as Catholics we are _bound_ to accept it. Text. 1. Iesus autem perrexit in 1. And Jesus went unto mount montem Oliveti: Olivet.