wherein all the reason and philosophy of atheism is confuted, and

626 Proclus'j Monad before the Trinity. Fogk I.is alfo a principle, and the God of gods, a monad from the firfi one, beforeall effence. Where, fo far as we can underftand, "jamblickm\ meaningis, that there is a fimple unity in order of nature, before that Tagaibon,or monad, which is the firft of the three divine hypoftafes. And. ,. this doclrine was afterward taken up by Prochis, he declaring it inLib. z. P-Q%-^^^^ manner ; Kwxai.yji HXcctuv ctto tk 7rA»)y»; £7ri T«j iva^x; a,vXTPi-/jiV ii,'j.4iv'jj.xkXov di >C) v^Q T8 IlAaTovoj xara tiw rlav srpa.'y^oiruv t«^iv Trto t? TAvifiK,- 'h oisl JO,Xj -StXITX, ^HXTX^i; KTTO fAOV:t,So^ (Xp^sixi' $l7 fJ-tVyup EX TfiizSc; n-pOiVJXi-TO'J a,pi^ij.0\l TOVSriVv, u.Xha, moo Tijf r^ia^oi; yi fj.oxii' «-« jMv Sv xj d SfjiMVcyrMX Tp=7; aAAa ti? o ttojTOW T^iuv £ij, vSifJAx yx^ Toju S-jiuv TB^fav £« TrXr&Sj- aWf7izi* ^'k ata ocTTo- Tsii/Jo; a-pyj-3(x,i $ti Tov SvijA.its^yiy.ov a^iS^-oK, aXA.' «7ro y.o'jaJoi;-< Plato every i!:here afcendsfrom vttiUitilde to -unity y from whence alfo the order of the many proceeds--,but before Plato, and according to the natural order of things, one isbefore multitude, and every divine order begins from a monad. Wherefore,though the divine number proceed in a trinity, yet before this trinityniLifi there be a monad. Let there be three demiurgical hypoflafes jneverthelef, before thefe mufi there be one, becaufe none of the divine orders beginsfrom multitude. We conclude, that the demiurgical number does not beginfrom a trinity, but from a monad, /landing alone by itfdf before that trinity;Here Proclus, though endeavouring to gain fome countenance for thisdocflrine out of Plato, yer, as fearing left that fliould fail him, doeshe fly to tire order of nature, and from ihence would infer, that beforethe trinity of 'demiurgick hypoftafes, there muft bo a fingle monador henad, ftanding alone by itfelf, us the head thereof. And Sr.Cyril of Alexandria, who was junior to /amblichus, but Icnior to Proclus,feems to take notice of this innovation in the Platonick theology,€.yul. /.S.as a thing then newly crept up, and after the time of Porphyry : «aa'f.271. o'i yi TT^on^YijAVio^. Xj zs-^0^ T«To uvliXiyudi, (pa,Ty.ovli; i^ri (Jiii T'AFAQO'N iruv-«ji6(u.£~i/ TOi; x-TT auT»' i^ri^YiQxi yx^ xtto ZTxan^ xoii/i.'uiV.f Stx to tlvxi xTrXiii TrxvrtiU) xiixlov Ti'JOf (r'Jf*Sair£wf 'Ato SI t» NO T, (xpy/i yse.p fro?) rn tomSx fj.'txv o-aSwaj-Bui thofe before mentioned contradiil this doSirine (of Porphyrius andthe ancient Platonifts) fl^r««»^, that the Tagathon ought not to be connumeratedor reckoned together with thofe which proceed fro-m it, but toheexempted from all communion, becaufe it is altogether fimple, and uncapableof any commixture or confociation with any other. Whereforethefebegin their trinity with Nous or Intelle£l, making that the firfi.The only difference here is, that Jamblichus feems to make the firflrhypoftaiis of the trinity after a monad to be Tagathon, but St. C>t//,Nous. However, they both meant the fame thing, as alfo did Proclus.after them. Wherefore, it is evident, that when, from the time of the Nicenecouncil and Athanafms, the Chriftian dodrine of the Trinity c;im.e to bepunctually ftated and fettled, and much to be infilled upon by Chriftians,Jamblichus. and other Platoniils, who were great antagonifts of the fame,perceiving what advantage the Chriftians had from the Platonick Trinity,then firft of all innovated this do6lrine, introducing a quaternity of di*vine hypoftafes, inftead of a trinity, the firft of them being not coordi*nate with the other three, nor confociated or reckoned with them-, but all ofthem, though fubordinate, yet univerfaJ,and fuch as comprehend the whole ;tiuL