213、但我知道，对人的理性来说，人类谨慎比圣治更有说服力，因为人能看见谨慎，却看不见圣治。此外，赞成圣治的推理其实更容易被人接受，即：独有一个生命，这生命就是神，所有人都是来自祂的生命的接受者，如前面频繁所示；然而，这与赞成自然界和人类谨慎的推理是一样的，因为谨慎属于生命。当出于属世人或外在人说话时，谁不以其推理说赞成人自己的谨慎和自然界的话呢？当出于属灵人或内在人说话时，谁不以其推理说赞成圣治和神的话呢？但我要对属世人或唯物主义者说，请写两本书，一本赞成人自己的谨慎，一本赞成大自然，用看似合理、可能和可信的论据，就是按你的判断相当确凿的论据充满它们；然后把它们递到任意一位天使手里；我知道天使会在下面写下这句话：它们都是表象和谬论。
213. However, I know that human prudence draws rationality more to its side than Divine providence does to its, because the latter is not apparent, while human prudence is.
People can more readily accept that there is but one life, which is God, and that people are all recipients of life from Him, as we have shown many times before. And yet this comes to the same thing, because prudence is a facet of life.
Who does not argue in support of human prudence and nature when doing so from his natural or external self? And on the other hand who does not argue in support of Divine providence and God when doing so from his spiritual or internal self?
But please, I say to the natural person, write two books and fill them with plausible, probable and likely arguments, arguments you judge to be solid - one book in support of a person's own prudence, one in support of nature - and then put them into the hand of any angel; and I know that the angel will write at the end these few words: "They are all appearances and fallacies."
213. I do know, though, that our prudence is more persuasive to our reasoning than divine providence, because we can see prudence but not providence. It is actually easier for us to accept the notion that there is only one life, which is God, and that we are all life-receivers from him, as I have already often explained; and yet this amounts to the same thing, because prudence is a property of life.
Do we not all speak in favor of our own prudence and of the material world when we are arguing from our earthly or outward selves, and speak in favor of divine providence and God when we are arguing from our spiritual or inner selves?
But I have a request, a message to the materialist: Write some books and fill them with plausible, probable, credible arguments, arguments that in your judgment are solid. Write one in favor of our own prudence and one in favor of the material world, and then hand them to an angel. I know the few words the angel will inscribe on your pages: "These are all illusions and distortions."
213. However, I know that human prudence exercises more influence over the rational faculty than the Divine Providence does, because the Divine Providence does not make itself manifest, while human prudence does. Moreover, the reasoning in favour of the Divine Providence can be more easily accepted, namely, that there is only one Life, which is God, and that all men are recipients of life from Him, as has been shown in many places before; and yet it amounts to the same as the reasoning in favour of nature and human prudence, for prudence pertains to the life. Who in his reasoning, when speaking from the natural or external man, does not speak in favour of man's own prudence and in favour of nature? On the other hand, who in his reasoning, when speaking from the spiritual or internal man, does not speak in favour of the Divine Providence and in favour of God? But, I say to the natural man, Pray write two books, one in favour of man's own prudence, the other in favour of nature, and pack them with arguments plausible, probable, likely and in your judgment valid; and then put them into the hand of any angel; and I know that the angel will write under them these few words: They are all appearances and fallacies.
213. But I know that human prudence is more able to draw the reason over to its side than the Divine providence is, because the Divine providence does not make itself evident as human prudence does. That there is one only life, which is God, and that all men are recipients of life from Him, as frequently shown before, can be more easily accepted; and yet this is the same thing, for prudence belongs to the life. Who in his reasoning, when he speaks from the natural or external man, does not speak in favor of one's own prudence and in favor of nature? And who in his reasoning, when he speaks from the spiritual or internal man, does not speak in favor of the Divine providence and of God? But to the natural man I say, Pray write two books, one in favor of one's own prudence, the other in favor of nature, and fill them with arguments plausible, probable, likely, and in your judgment valid; and then give them into the hand of any angel; and I know that the angel will write underneath these few words, They are all appearances and fallacies.
213. Sed scio, quod Prudentia humana ferat rationale plus in suas partes, quam Divina Providentia in suas, ex causa, quia haec non apparet, et illa apparet: facilius potest recipi, quod unica Vita sit, quae Deus, et quod omnes homines recipientes vitae sint ab Ipso, ut multis prius ostensum est, et hoc tamen idem est, quia prudentia est vitae. Quis non ratiocinando loquitur pro Propria prudentia et pro Natura, dum ex naturali seu externo homine; at quis non ratiocinando loquitur pro Divina Providentia et pro Deo, dum ex spirituali seu interno homine. Sed quaeso, dico ad naturalem hominem, scribe libros, et imple illos argumentis plausibilibus, probabilibus et verosimilibus, in tuo judicio solidis, unum pro Propria prudentia, alterum pro Natura, et postea da illos alicui Angelo in manum, ac scio quod haec pauca subscripturus sit, sunt omnia Apparentiae et Fallaciae.