creation, however originated, must have had a beginning, place it as far back as you will.  In any succession of numbers, however infinitely they may stretch, the commencement at least is a fixed point, one.  But, this multiplication of Deity, this complex simplicity, this intricate easiness, this obvious paradox, this sub-division and con-addition of a One, must have taken place, so soon as ever eternal benevolence found itself alone; that is, in eternity, and not in any imaginable time.  So then, the Being or Beings would probably not have been creative, but of the essence of Deity.  Take also for an additional argument, that it is an idea which detracts from every just estimate of the infinite and all-wise God to suppose He should take creatures into his eternal counsels, or consort, so to speak, familiarly with other than the united sub-divisions, persons, and coeequals of Himself.  It was reasonable to prejudge that the everlasting companions of Benevolent God, should also be God.  And thus, it appears antecedently probable that (what from the poverty of language we must call) the multiplication of the one God should not have been created beings; that is, should have been divine; a term, which includes, as of right, the attribution to each such Holy Person, of all the wondrous characteristics of the Godhead.

Again:  as to the latter question; was it probable that such so-called sub-divisions should be two, or three, or how many?  I do not think it will be wise to insist upon any such arithmetical curiosity as a perfect number; nor on such a toy as an equilateral triangle and its properties; nor on the peculiar aptitude for sub-division in every thing, to be discerned in a beginning, a middle, and an end; nor in the consideration that every fact had a cause, is a constancy, and produces a consequence:  neither, to draw any inferences from the social maxim that for counsel, companionship, and conversation, the number three has some special fitness.  Some other similar fancies, not altogether valueless, might be alluded to.  It seems preferable, however, on so grand a theme, to attempt a deeper dive, and a higher flight.  We would then, reverently as always, albeit equally as always with the free-born boldness of God’s intellectual children, attempt to prejudge how many, and with what distinctive marks, the holy beings into whom (Greek:  ost epos eipein) God, for very Benevolence sake, pours out Essential Unity, were likely to be.

Let us consider what principles, as in the case of a forthcoming creation, would probably be found in action, to influence such creation’s Author.

First of all, there would be Will, a will energized by love, disposing to create:  a phase of Deity aptly and comprehensively typified to all minds by the name of a universal Father:  this would be the primary impersonation of God.  And is it not so?