3582. so considering the many objects there are within the body, and because I do not know how they contribute to life, and because I see nothing but impossibilities that life could result from them, should I then deny that the swallow lives and is a swallow? Is it not enough when it is obvious that it is alive and is a sparrow, that to reason in this way is to call into nonsensical doubt the fact that it lives, thus to plunge the mind into shadow and darkness (which were portrayed at the same time), so that I would utterly deny what is true,
I was also inspired to portray a certain type of flower that I see to be a flower of beautiful colors. If now I consider its fibrous stalk, which it pushes straight upwards, the juice then oozing out; then wonder how the root is able to produce everything and develop everything in such a way that the little parts may beautifully arrange themselves as if they know how to do so in such an order that the colors stand out so beautifully and the flower then comes forth - if because of all this I start to reason about the existence of the flower as a flower, would I not be plunged into shadows and completely deny that the flower exists; and so forth? So thousands of objections can be raised, as many as there are objects, and all of them such as are bound to break down the truth of any matter and to darken the light of truth.
3582. Since [I say] I know not in regard to these things how they contribute to life, and deem it impossible that life should be the result - if on this account I should deny that the sparrow really lived and was what it is, [should I not act unreasonably?] Would it not be sufficient that it was plain that it did live and was of such a quality? And to reason in such a way, would it not be to cast the mind into such shades and darkness - which were at the same time thence represented - that I should deny what was [obviously] true? It was also given to represent a certain flower which I see to be a flower of beautiful colors. If now I should reason from the stalk, from its fibers, which simply rise on high, from the juice oozing forth, then from the root, how it could produce and form such things, so that the particles should beautifully arrange themselves as if they knew what they were about, causing such elegant colors and also the flower itself to exist - if from these things I should reason concerning the existence and quality of the flower, should I not fall into shade, and deny that the flower existed, and so on? Wherefore a thousand objections may be started; as many, in fact, as the objects themselves, and all of such a nature as to destroy truth and cover its light with darkness.
3582. et fluere, ut inde vivere queat- quare tot objecta, quot sunt intus in corpore, quia ea non scio, quomodo ad vitam contribuunt, et quia impossibilia solum video, ut inde vita- [quod] inde negarem quod passer vivat et talis sit, anne satis sit, dum constat quod vivat et talis sit, et quod ratiocinari ex talibus, sit in dubium nonsensum vocare quod vivat, sic projicere mentem in umbram, et tenebras, quae simul repraesentabantur inde, ut prorsus negarem quod verum. Repraesentare etiam datum est florem quendam, quem video florem pulchrum coloribus, si ratiocinarer ex caule, ex ejus fibris, quem simpliciter in altum sursum agit, ex succo sic emergente, tum ex radice quomodo talia adducere possit, et sic talia formare, ut ponantur pulchre particulae, tanquam scirent, in talem ordinem, ut colores tam pulchre existant, et flos sic existat, si ex illis ratiocinarer, de existentia floris ut talis, annon in umbram caderem, et negarem prorsus quod flos existat, et sic porro, quare millia objectionum formari queant, quot nempe objecta, et omnia talia, quae destruent veritatem rei, et obtenebrabunt veritatis lucem.