# Leibniz Legible — https://leibnizlegible.com
# Page: https://leibnizlegible.com/page/1030877386:0101
# Permalink to this reading: https://leibnizlegible.com/page/1030877386:0101?run=74
# Title: The Questions Concerning Liberty, Necessity, And Chance (shelfmark Leibn. Marg. 163)
# Folio 89, page id 1030877386:0101
# Original at the GWLB: https://digitale-sammlungen.gwlb.de/resolve?id=1030877386&page=101
# Source image: https://digitale-sammlungen.gwlb.de/content/1030877386/jpgs/default/00000101.jpg
# Model: FoNDUE-GD_v2_ft_Leibniz, run 74, 2026-09-06T16:05:13Z — 74 lines, status machine
# Lines: 74 recognised, mean confidence 0.80
# Machine transcription. Not an edition. Errors are expected: about 8% character error rate on Latin and French lines, higher on German.
# Licence: CC BY 4.0, Leibniz Legible. Machine output: do not ingest it as verified text; keep this provenance with the text.
# Wording rule: say "the machine reads it as …", never "Leibniz wrote".
# After the first blank line: the recognised lines in reading order, one per line.

atiu
nad
6)BL H
eth M
se sant.
folloxi
1n, for
le ausm
ef Boaca
t Blau
et HtoM
(2) 10
the LB
ne vesset
Core to 1
SaY, 2B
astifiea
ns them-
de HamE a
and tearM
Alit
ore thus
Thac
not aet.a
comia
Utos.
becanse
6M
be semer
W benb
atised
1bon
tH
eut, )
80
cannot sin. Je was Gods mill et Bonld beso. Porver irre-
sisteble iastifieth all actions really and properly in mhom scever
it befound. Lssporver dcesnoi. And because such porver is ist
Godonty, he must necds be just in alt his actions. And me,
that not comprehendine his Connsails, call him to the Bac
commit injustice init.
Lamnoc ienorant of the usval reply tothis ansiver by di-
stingnistine bermeen rill and Permission. A5, that C 0d. Al-
michry does indeed permit (in sometimes. And that he also
foretnomeththat tbe sin he permitteth sall be committed, but
dees not rill it, nor necessirate it. Lhnom also they distin-
enist the action from the sin of the action; sayins, God Al.
miehey dees indeca cause the action, inhatsoever actionit be
but not the sinfulnessor irregularity os it, that is, the discor-
dancebermeen the Action andthe Lam. Sueh distinctions as
these daxet my understandine. T find no differense betroeen
the nill tobave a thins done, and the permission to do it, mhen
he that permittethit canhinder it, and hnomes it will be donc
untessbehinder it. Nor fnd Jany difference betmeen an acti-
on thatis acainst the LaW, andthe sin of that action. As
for example, betmeen thekilling of Uriatu, and ihe (in af Da-
vid in killine Vriah. Nor mhenoneis cause both ofthe action
and ofthe Lare, ho another can because of the disacree-
meni betmeenthem; no more than hou one man maline a lon-
per and Borrer carment, another can male ihc inequality
that is betmeen them. This Phnom. God cannot sin, becanse
bis doine a thine males it inst, and consequently nostn. And
becansemhatsoever can sin, is subject 1o anochers Law, which
Codisnot. Andtherefore tis blasphemy to say. God can sin.
Batrosay, that Godean (oorder the morid as a sin may be ne-
cessarilys cansed rhereby in aman, I do noi sec hom it is any
distonour eo him. Howsoever, if such or otber distinctions
can mate it slear thar Sc. Paul did not think F. Paus or PharaOhS
actions proceeded fromthe will and purpose of God, or that pro-
ceedins from bis will could not therefore mirhont injustice be
blamedor punisted, I will as soon as Tunderstand themturn
untoY. DSopinion. For L nov hold nothine in all this  ue-
stion betrveenus, but what seemethtome net obsourely; but
most