either side, but for fear of suffering in his reputation, he would
confirm that the expanse is of the centre, that is, from the centre;
although I know, said he, that something existed before the sun, and
this in the universe throughout, and that these things flowed together
of themselves into order, thus into centres. But here again we addressed
him from the overflowing of an indignant zeal, and said, "Friend, you
are insane." On hearing these words, he drew his couch aside from the
table, and looked timidly at us, and then listened to our conversation,
but with a smile upon his countenance, while we thus proceeded: "What is
a surer proof of insanity, than to say that the centre is from the
expanse? By your centre we understand the sun, and by your expanse the
universe; and thus, according to you, the universe existed without the
sun: but does not the sun make nature, and all its properties, which
depend solely on the heat and light proceeding from the sun by the
atmospheres? Where were those things previous to the sun's existence?
But whence they originated we will shew presently. Are not the
atmospheres and all things which exist on the earth, as surfaces, and
the sun their centre? What are they all without the sun; or how could
they subsist a single moment in the sun's absence? Consequently what
were they all before the sun, or how could they subsist? Is not
subsistence perpetual existence? Since therefore all the parts of nature
derive their subsistence from the sun, they must of consequence derive
also their existence from the same origin: every one sees and is
convinced of this truth by the testimony of his own eyes. Does not that
which is posterior subsist from what is prior, as it exists from what is
prior? Supposing the surface to be the prior and the centre the
posterior, would not the prior in such case subsist from the posterior,
which yet is contrary to the laws of order? How can posterior things
produce prior, or exterior things produce interior, or grosser things
produce purer? consequently, how can surfaces, which constitute the
expanse, produce centres? Who does not see that this is contrary to the
laws of nature? We have adduced these arguments from a rational
analysis, to prove that the expanse exists from the centre, and not the
centre from the expanse; nevertheless every one who sees aright, sees it
to be so without the help of such arguments. You have asserted, that the
expanse flowed together of it