The demonstration might be extended to each of the divine perfections, and the same result would be obtained. The above remarks are a mere clue to the argument which is possible, and satisfactory; founded on the necessary nature of Jehovah. The key to the whole demonstration is this: 1. The Divine Being, from his very and necessary nature, must be eternally, immensely, and immutably active. 2. He must be eternally, immensely, and immutably happy. 3. In order to be eternally, immensely, and immutably active and happy, He must be exercised to the whole extent of his nature and perfections, eternally, immensely, and immutably. 4. That such an exercise of his nature and perfections, in an eternal, immense, and immutable manner, cannot be, in regard to Creation and Providence; because, Creation and Providence are not eternal, immense, and immutable. 5. As there was not any thing _before_ Creation and Providence, but God Himself, it must follow, necessarily, that the eternal, immense, and immutable activity and happiness of the Divine Being were WITHIN _Himself entirely_. 6. As it is impossible for the human intellect to conceive, that a being can be both _agent_ and _object, in the same action_, and the activity of the Divine Being has been shown to have been within Himself entirely; it follows, THAT THE DIVINE ESSENCE MUST HAVE SUBSISTED ETERNALLY, IMMENSELY, AND IMMUTABLY IN A PLURALITY. 7. And as the mind is _forced_ to admit a _plurality_ in the Divine Essence, it naturally, and necessarily assumes PERSONS for this plurality; and thus concludes, _There must be a plurality of persons in the Godhead as the Scriptures declare._ From the foregoing elements of the argument, it will be very easy to observe, if a _plurality_ must be admitted, there is no objection in the mind to admit it is _triple_; and hence, as the substance of the Divine Essence has been shown to exist necessarily in a plurality, the mind conceives a _triple plurality_, as easy as any other, and thus conceives the reasonableness of the doctrine of the _Trinity in Unity_. The most successful argument against this conclusion is this: _It is impossible to conceive how three can be one_. This is admitted, _when the objects designated by_ “three” _are the same as the object designated by_ “one.” But this is not the case in the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity. The term _Trinity_ applies to the _persons_ in which the Divine Essence subsists, and _not_ to the essence itself. So the term _Unity_ applies to the _Essence only_, and _not_ to the persons. This simple distinction removes the whole force of the objection.