As it has already been proven above, that this internal exercise in the Divine Essence necessarily implies _plurality_ in the Godhead; so now also, is it proven, that the admission of such plurality is the only view competent to show _HOW_ the Divine Being could have exercised his own nature and perfections _immensely_, as the attribute of immensity appertains to God only. As it is granted, that the Divine Being was necessarily as happy _before_ Creation and Providence as since, and would continue so, should Creation and Providence cease; of course his happiness consists in the exercise of his own nature and perfections according to their own law. But, in order that the Divine Being should be eternally, immensely, and immutably happy, the WHOLE of the Divine Nature and perfections must be exercised eternally, immensely, and immutably. But if we divest the Divine Essence of its plural personality, we cannot conceive that some of the divine perfections can be exercised at all. For example: the divine goodness, love, wisdom, intelligence, and all his _moral_ perfections. We surely cannot say, He manifests his goodness to Himself; or exercises his love towards Himself; or employs his wisdom in understanding Himself; all of which ideas are obviously absurd. But so soon as we admit the idea of a plural personality, or the subsistence of the Divine Essence in a plurality of persons, we can conceive the moral perfections exercised in Himself, between the persons of the Godhead. This is the only ground on which we can conceive of his eternal, immense, and immutable happiness. For we can readily conceive of the distinct persons in the Divine Essence, _communicating mutually_ to each other the _whole_ of the divine moral perfections; and thus conceive of the perfect and independent happiness of God. The only remaining view of this subject would be this: the activity, energy, and influence of the Divine Being can only regard Creation and Providence. But as there was a _past eternity before_ Creation and Providence began, in which the Divine Being existed, He must be considered as having been _inactive_, _solitary_, and _unconscious_; (because there cannot be consciousness where there is not action,) the whole and every part of which view is derogatory to the acknowledged character of God. How much more reasonable is it to conceive the Divine Essence to subsist in a plurality of persons, and thus to conceive, _consistently_, of the eternal, immense, and immutable activity and happiness of the Divine Being? _Thus we see, that what the Scriptures declare concerning the plurality of persons in the Divine Essence_, CANNOT BE OTHERWISE, AS IS DEMONSTRATED ABOVE, FROM THE NECESSARY NATURE OF THE GLORIOUS DIVINITY.