Here again is a request from the McMaster Museum of Art. The Latin caption reads
Pet. Paul Rubbens pinxit
Aspicis errantes fallax ut retibus auceps
Fallat aves, omnes aptat obitij; vias
Sic animae stygius fraudem parat hostis et astum :
Si vigiles ; laqueo vincitur ipse suo
Gaspar Huberti excudit Antuerpiae.
I believe aspicis should read aspicit. Translated into English, this says
Painted by Peter Paul Rubens
The deceitful man watches those going astray just as a bird-catcher
tricks birds with nets, he accommodates all the ways of meeting with it
thus the infernal and cunning enemy of the spirit prepares fraud :
if they are vigilant ; he is himself defeated by his own noose
Engraved by Gaspar Huberti of Antwerp.
Note that the Latin obiti, translated here as “meeting with” has a strong connotation of dying, i.e. meeting with death.
The final line of the admonition gives me some trouble. Vigiles could be read as a masculine, plural, nominative adjective. Taken substantively (as Latin often does) and assuming that the verb “to be” is implied (as Latin often does), you have “they are vigilant”. But it could also be read as a 2nd person singular verb in the subjunctive mood “you might be vigilant”. Here, with si: “if”, it would read “should you be vigilant”. I’m a little more confident in the first of the two interpretations, because if the condition of an if Clause is in the subjunctive, then the consequence should be too, and this is not the case here.