necessary and essential in its original constitution, according to the present state of things in the moral world, there must be found in the Divine Being an uncreated, necessary, and essential perfection, corresponding to this. Because the fairest reasoning runs thus-If the Divine Being has bestowed upon the human essence the power of speech, as the highest social perfection, and if the Divine Being cannot bestow upon the human essence what it has not in itself, in a way becoming its own nature; then demonstration fully proves, that there must be in the Divine Essence a perfection corresponding to the power of speech in the human soul. But still it must be understood, that the divine perfection excels the human, as far as the Creator excels the creature. But as the human is formed after the image of the divine, still our argument is legitimate and conclusive.

5. Now, if there be in the Divine Essence a perfection corresponding with the perfection of speech in the human essence, and if that perfection in the Divine Essence, be corresponding with all the other divine perfections, natural and moral, then, from a fair abstract investigation of the power of speech in the human essence, an argument arises, which, when traced in all its bearings, irresistibly proves, that there must be a plurality of persons in the Divine Essence. And if there be a plurality of persons in the Divine

Essence, without any perfection in that essence answering to, and corresponding with, the power of speech in the human soul, then there cannot possibly be any communication, in the way of intellectual intercourse, among these divine persons.

6. Again; if there be in the Divine Essence a necessary perfection, corresponding with, and answering to, the power of speech in the human essence, and if there be not a plurality of persons in the Divine Essence, then the Divine Being possesses a perfection, for which, if we dare so speak, it has no use, and which never has, can, nor will be exercised. This is the same as to affirm that the Divine Being is imperfect, because a perfection inheres in that Essence, which never was, has, nor shall be exercised, by the Divine Being, from eternity to eternity. That is, the Divine Being has a perfection which is of no use; and this is the same as to do away the idea of the Divine Being altogether, which is both impious and absurd. For perhaps we can entertain no lower nor more dishonourable view of the Divine Being, than to suppose it possible for the divine perfections either to remain for ever inactive, or to be exercised merely toward created beings, which are imperfect. This would be the same as to affirm, that the Divine Being is indeed perfect, but never has, can, nor will, from everlasting to everlasting, use or exercise any one of the divine perfections, according to

its own nature, in all its uncreated and absolute energy. And this is surely, at best, but conceiving of the Divine Being as imperfect, which is not only directly contrary to reason, but highly dangerous.

Again; as we have already proved, from an abstract view of the divine necessary perfections, that there must be a plurality of persons in the Divine Essence, so we now argue, from the full and perfect exercise of the divine perfection under consideration, that we can have no idea of the divine counsel, nor the divine procedure, in the government of the universe, in consistency with those perfections we have already explored, and with the perfection now under consideration, if there be not a plurality of persons in the Divine Essence. To conceive of all the divine goodness, in its uncreated and absolute extent and influence, as communicated in the Divine Essence, without any thing corresponding to the power of speech, is to conceive of the perfect communication of the divine goodness, without the enjoyment of that perfection, in all its absolute and unlimited extent, which is absurd. Still more strongly is this principle supported, by the argument taken from the perfection of love. this perfection be exercised in the Divine Essence, according to its own nature, in consistency with all its unlimited, eternal, immense, and immutable extent, by one divine person to

If

another, without any thing corresponding to the power of speech, we must conceive of the Divine Being as either altogether wanting a perfection, which contributes so much to the happiness of the rational intelligent creature; or, if it be argued that this perfection really does inhere in the Divine Essence, then it may be answered, that, upon the hypothesis of only one person subsisting in the Divine Essence, it is impossible that the Divine Being could ever use or exercise this perfection; and this is the same as to affirm that the Divine Being is imperfect, which is impossible. There must, therefore, be in the Divine Essence a plurality of persons, according to the foregoing reasoning, or there must not inhere in the Divine Essence a perfection corresponding to the power of speech in the human soul.

per

Should we argue from the exercise of the fection of knowledge, we cannot conceive how the uncreated knowledge, in its divine perfection, can be communicated by one divine person to another, necessarily subsisting in the Divine Essence, without, at the same time, conceiving the use and exercise of a perfection corresponding to the power of speech in the human soul.

The same mode of reasoning will still apply and hold good with respect to the exercise of wisdom, power, love-perfections corresponding to the social powers of the human soul, and all the divine moral perfections.

7. Therefore, as the exercise, manifestation, and display of every one of the divine moral perfections in the Divine Essence, must at the very same time be accompanied with the exercise of a perfection corresponding to the power of speech in the human soul, or else they must be exercised imperfectly, which is impossible; therefore, from the power of speech in the human soul, the doctrine of three distinct persons, subsisting in three distinct incommunicable relations to one another in the Divine Essence, may be fairly proved, and fully established.

The first person is necessarily constituted by the economy of the Divine Essence and perfections, according to personal distinction, having this perfection necessarily, and in all respects consistent with the nature of Deity, and subsisting as the first. The second having it in all respects the very same, and subsisting as the second. The third must also have it in all respects the very same, and subsisting as the third.

Therefore, while we must conceive of the Divine Being as everliving, spiritual, intelligent, moral, and possessing existence, and perfection, and happiness in itself, we must conclude, from such a view, according to the force of the foregoing reasoning, that the doctrine of the Trinity is both rational, and consistent with the necessary existence, independence, and happiness of the Divine Being.