Let A be a ring, E', E, E'' three A-modules and u : E' \to E, v : E \to E'' two homomorphisms. For the sequence
(1)E′uEvE′′⟶0
to be exact, it is necessary and sufficient that, for every A-module F, the sequence
(2)0⟶Hom(E′′,F)vˉHom(E,F)uˉHom(E′,F)
(where uˉ=Hom(u,1F), vˉ=Hom(v,1F)) be exact.
Suppose that sequence (1) is exact. If w∈Hom(E′′,F) and vˉ(w)=w∘v=0, then w=0 since v is surjective. Sequence (2) is therefore exact at Hom(E′′,F). We show that it is exact at Hom(E,F). uˉ∘vˉ=Hom(v∘u,1F) (§ 1, no. 2, formula (10)) and v∘u=0 since sequence (1) is exact at E. Therefore uˉ∘vˉ=0, that is Im(vˉ)⊂Ker(uˉ). On the other hand, if w∈Ker(uˉ), then w∘u=0 and hence Ker(w)⊃Im(u). But as sequence (1) is exact at E, Im(u)=Ker(v) and hence Ker(w)⊃Ker(v); as v is surjective, it follows from § 1, no. 3, Remark that there exists a w′∈Hom(E′′,F) such that w = w' \circ v = \bar{v}(w'). Therefore Ker(\bar{u}) \subset \operatorname{Im}(\bar{v}), which completes the proof that sequence (2) is exact.
Conversely, suppose that (2) is exact for every A-module F. As uˉ∘vˉ=Hom(v∘u,1F)=0,w∘v∘u=0 for every homomorphism w:E′′→F. Taking F=E′′ and w=1E′′, it is seen first that v∘u=0 and hence u(E′)⊂Ker(v). Now take F=Coker(u) and let ϕ:E→F=E/u(E′) be the canonical mapping. Then uˉ(ϕ)=ϕ∘u=0 by definition and hence there exists a ψ∈Hom(E′′,F) such that ϕ=vˉ(ψ)=ψ∘v; this obviously implies u(E′)=Ker(ϕ)⊃Ker(v), which proves that sequence (1) is exact at E. Finally, let θ be the canonical homomorphism of E′′ onto F=E′′/v(E); then vˉ(θ)=θ∘v=0, hence θ=0; therefore, F={0} and v is surjective. Sequence (1) is therefore exact at E′′.
Bourbaki puts the proof directly after the statement, so what is above is the statement and its proof together.