It would be easy to cite a host of distinguished authorities unfavourable to Dr. Colenso's interpretation. But we may well be content with these two. They certainly deserve a place in the very foremost rank of Hebrew scholars. Moreover, their testimony on the present question is above all suspicion; for it is well known that they share largely in the opinions of Dr. Colenso and his school. Nothing, therefore, could be farther from their purpose than to sacrifice the principles of philology with a view to defend the historical accuracy of the Bible. We beg to remind our readers that we express no opinion as regards the genuine meaning of this disputed word. Our position is simply this: Dr. Colenso's argument is _totally devoid of foundation_ unless he _prove_ that the word must mean _armed men_; and we maintain that he has utterly failed to do so; that, after all he has written, the meaning of the word still remains uncertain. He attempts, however, to support his opinion by a fact recorded in the Pentateuch itself: "If they did not take it with them out of Egypt, where did they get the armour, with which, about a month afterwards, they fought the Amalekites (_Ex._, xvii. 8-13), and 'discomfited them with the edge of the sword'?" Dr. Colenso undertakes to prove that the Israelites are represented by Moses to have gone up _armed_ out of Egypt. And here is his proof. If they did not bring the arms with them, where did they get them afterwards? That is to say, after the lapse of thirty-three centuries, when we have nothing to assist us but the very brief and summary narrative of Moses, he asks us to explain in what way the Israelites were supplied with arms. And if, with such scanty means of information, we cannot tell him _how_ that fact took place, he infers that it was therefore _impossible_. Such is the flimsy reasoning by which he vainly hopes to shake the foundations of Christian faith. It seems to us that nothing could be more satisfactory than the explanation suggested by Josephus, to whom Dr. Colenso has himself referred. But such conjectures, however probable in themselves, and well supported by authority, are unnecessary for our purpose. It is not for us to explain _how_ the facts actually occurred, but for our adversary to make good his assertion, that they are _absolute impossibilities_ or _manifest contradictions_.