That formulation means that there are real distinctions in God, which is at odds with simplicity.
The problem with that comparison is a barn is made up of substance and accidents, whereas God is not. A barn may or may not be red (accident), but still remain a barn (substance). God's attributes are not like that, as God is without accidents. So, while the divine attributes may be conceptually distinguished according to our finite understandings, they cannot actually be different either from God's essence or from each other. Accordingly, God's love is holy love, and God's holiness is infinitely lovely. That is why the Westminster Confession uses language such as "to the praise of his glorious justice"; owing to the identity of the divine attributes with one another, God's justice is glorious and his glory is perfectly just. I really do not see why the identity of the divine attributes with each other is a problem? After all, is not the love of God infinite, eternal, and immutable? Is God not immutably holy, and holy in his immutability?
This assumption is only a problem if one assumes a univocal likeness between divine and human knowledge, which is the error that Charles Hodge seems to fall into on this point. Analogical knowledge solves the problem he raises and also does justice to the divine incomprehensibility. Of course, we cannot fully understand how the divine attributes are identical with one another, but neither can we fully comprehend the divine essence. I mean no disrespect to these 19th and 20th-century guys, but it is partly thanks to them that we have ended up with some absolutely shocking teaching concerning theology proper in modern Reformed circles.