"If, then, the historical veracity of this part of the Pentateuch is to be maintained, we must believe that six hundred thousand armed men (though it is inconceivable how they obtained their arms), had, by reason of their long servitude, become so debased and inhuman in their cowardice (and yet they fought bravely enough with Amalek a month afterwards), that they could not strike a single blow for their wives and children, if not for their own lives and liberties, but could only weakly wail and murmur against Moses, saying: 'It had been better for us to serve the Egyptians than that we should die in the wilderness' (_Ex._, xiv. 12)--(pp. 50, 51.) The substance of this objection may be compressed into a few words. It is stated in the Pentateuch that the Israelites went up _armed_ out of Egypt. Furthermore it is stated that the number of armed men among them was 600,000. But these statements are utterly inconsistent with other facts contained in the same book. Therefore the narrative cannot be regarded as historically true. To estimate the value of this argument, it will be necessary to inquire if Dr. Colenso has proved that these two statements are really to be found in the Pentateuch. We maintain that he has not. For the first, he appeals to the words of _Exodus_, xiii. 18: "The children of Israel went up harnessed out of the land of Egypt". This text is indeed conclusive, if it be shown that the Hebrew word חֲמֻשִׁים (Chamushim), which is here translated _harnessed_, must mean _armed_, and can mean nothing else. But has Dr. Colenso adduced any satisfactory evidence to establish this point, so essential to his argument? Far from it. In the whole Hebrew language there is not a single word of which the meaning is more uncertain. It occurs but four times in the Old Testament, and never later than in the Book of Judges. We must, therefore, be content to conjecture its meaning partly from its etymology, partly from the authority of early versions, and partly from the context of those passages in which it is found. We do not, however, mean to inflict upon our readers the dry details of a philological discussion. Nor could we presume to set up our own judgment in these matters against the opinion of Dr. Colenso. It will be less tedious, and more satisfactory, to appeal to the authority of those who have made the Hebrew language the subject of their special study, and who have availed themselves of all the means which the science of philology can supply, to determine the precise signification of every word in the Bible.