(53) A due consideration of these passage will clearly show us that God has
no particular style in speaking, but, according to the learning and capacity
of the prophet, is cultivated, compressed, severe, untutored, prolix, or
obscure.

(54) There was, moreover, a certain variation in the visions vouchsafed to
the prophets, and in the symbols by which they expressed them, for Isaiah
saw the glory of the Lord departing from the Temple in a different form from
that presented to Ezekiel. (55) The Rabbis, indeed, maintain that both
visions were really the same, but that Ezekiel, being a countryman, was
above measure impressed by it, and therefore set it forth in full detail;
but unless there is a trustworthy tradition on the subject, which I do not
for a moment believe, this theory is plainly an invention. Isaiah saw
seraphim with six wings, Ezekiel beasts with four wings; Isaiah saw God
clothed and sitting on a royal throne, Ezekiel saw Him in the likeness of a
fire; each doubtless saw God under the form in which he usually imagined
Him.

(56) Further, the visions varied in clearness as well as in details; for the
revelations of Zechariah were too obscure to be understood by the prophet
without explanation, as appears from his narration of them; the visions of
Daniel could not be understood by him even after they had been explained,
and this obscurity did not arise from the difficulty of the matter revealed
(for being merely human affairs, these only transcended human capacity in
being future), but solely in the fact that Daniel's imagination was not so
capable for prophecy while he was awake as while he was asleep; and this is
further evident from the fact that at the very beginning of the vision he
was so terrified that he almost despaired of his strength. (57) Thus, on
account of the inadequacy of his imagination and his strength, the things
revealed were so obscure to him that he could not understand them even after