10. And as for their appearances, they four had one likeness, as if a wheel had been in the midst of a wheel.
10. Et aspectus eorum similitudo una, ipsis quatuor, quemadmodum si rota esset in medio rotae.
We have also explained this part. He says that all had the same aspect, not because God always governs events in an equable manner, for experience opposes this. But he means that the appearance was the same, because the variety which causes darkness to our eyes, does not remove the perpetual and well-arranged tenor of the works of God. Hence there is one appearance to the four wheels, because all God's works agree among themselves; and although their wonderful variety draws our eyes this way and that, yet he knows how to direct to his own purposes things which appear so dissipated. There is again a kind of concession, when he says, that wheel was in the midst of wheel For we see things so mutually involved, that no distinction occurs to us when we consider God's works by our own carnal sense. If we wish, therefore, to judge concerning God's works, wheel will be in the midst of wheel; that is, there will be wonderful perplexity, and this will hold us so bound together, that our minds cannot extricate themselves. This, therefore, is the concession, that. wheel was in the midst of wheel; but the common error is corrected directly afterwards, when the Prophet adds that the wheels were full of eyes It follows then --