If the first assumption in Dr. Colenso's argument is uncertain, the second is manifestly false. He maintains that, not only are the Israelites said to have been _armed_, but that they are represented as having 600,000 armed men. It is the existence of _such a mighty host_--_nearly nine times as great as the whole of Wellington's army at Waterloo_--_with arms in their hands_, that seems to him irreconcileable with the condition of a _down-trodden, oppressed people_. It is because the children of Israel had 600,000 _armed men in the prime of life_ that he cannot conceive it possible they would have _cried out in panic terror_ "_sore afraid_". Now let us grant, for a moment, the point which we have just been disputing, and let us suppose Moses explicitly to declare that the children of Israel went up armed out of Egypt. Would this statement convey that there were 600,000 armed men? We know, indeed, that this was the number of the adult male population. But when we say that a people is armed, we do not mean that every man of twenty years old and upwards is under arms. Within the last two years how often have we heard it said that the Poles were armed against Russia? And yet the number of Poles actually bearing arms was not one-twentieth part of the adult male population. Just in the same way, if it were said that the Israelites were armed, we should understand nothing more than that a certain proportion of the people was armed for the protection of the whole. It would, then, be no matter for surprise that such a collection of armed men, without organisation, without training, should be struck with terror at the sight of the numerous and well-disciplined troops of Pharaoh, fully equipped, and provided with horses and chariots and all the accoutrements of war.