Oh! but (says somebody) it is only in Paul 1st,--in Paul's supposed unstudied speech, that the historian makes them see the light that Paul saw. Answer. True: but neither in his own person does he say the contrary. As to their seeing, all he says is, that _they_ saw no man, "hearing a voice but seeing no man." (ver. 7.) But by the same account, (ver. 8.) "When _his_ eyes were opened, he saw no man;" so that, though in what he says in his own person the historian does not mention this which he mentions, speaking in Paul's person,--yet he does not contradict it. 10. _Paul's companions. What part, if any, took they in the conversation?_ Per Acts, they stood speechless: and it is after the dialogue has been reported, that this is stated. In the unstudied speech, nothing is said about their speech. In the studied speech, with reference to them, no mention is made of speech; any more than of sight or hearing. But, forasmuch as, according to Acts, whatever Paul saw and heard, they saw and heard likewise; how happened it, that by no one of them, so much as a word, on an occasion so interesting to all, was said--or a question put? To be sure it was to Paul alone, that by the voice, whosever it was, any address was made. It was his concern:--his alone, and none of theirs. So, indeed, some might think; but, others in their situation, quite as naturally might think otherwise. Sooner or later, at any rate, they would recover whatever it was they lost: sight, if sight; speech, if speech. Whenever recovered, speech would thereupon range with but the greater freedom, for the restraint which, for a time, had been put upon it:--range over the whole business, including whatever secrets Paul had been put in possession of:--the commission, the sweeping and incarcerating commission he had been intrusted with by the rulers, and the unperformed promise that had been made to him by the voice, which being at midday, accompanied by an extraordinary light, was of course the Lord's voice. These things would naturally, by these his companions, have been converted from secrets into town-talk. Nay but (says somebody) though it _is_ said he saw no _man_, it is _not_ said, he saw not the Lord: and elsewhere he may be seen saying--saying in the most positive terms, that he did see the Lord[7]. And if he did see the Lord anywhere, why not here as well as anywhere else? "_Saw no man._" Yes: so says the English version. But the original is more comprehensive:--Saw no person, says the original: that is, to speak literally, saw no one of the masculine gender. No one what? No one person of this gender: this is what the word means, if it means anything. No person; and therefore no Lord: no God; if so it be that, when applied to denote God, the word person means God, or as some say, a part of God.