Himself. It was reasonable to prëjudge 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 prëjudge how many, and with what
distinctive marks, the holy beings into whom (Greek: ôst 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.