# Leibniz Legible — https://leibnizlegible.com
# Page: https://leibnizlegible.com/page/1030877386:0211
# Permalink to this reading: https://leibnizlegible.com/page/1030877386:0211?run=74
# Title: The Questions Concerning Liberty, Necessity, And Chance (shelfmark Leibn. Marg. 163)
# Folio 211, page id 1030877386:0211
# Original at the GWLB: https://digitale-sammlungen.gwlb.de/resolve?id=1030877386&page=211
# Source image: https://digitale-sammlungen.gwlb.de/content/1030877386/jpgs/default/00000211.jpg
# Model: FoNDUE-GD_v2_ft_Leibniz, run 74, 2026-09-06T16:05:13Z — 39 lines, status machine
# Lines: 39 recognised, mean confidence 0.91
# 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.

C2TI)
cary) equallys Frec. As for Caiphas his praphecy Which ehe
Text saith, Fle spalee nor of himself, it mas necesarr; first, because
it mas by ehe supernaturat eife of Cred ro the Flieh priests assove-
raiens of the Common mealth os the Feris, to speakta the people as
from the monthof60d, that is tosay, to prophesie; and sccondli
Whensoever hedid speake not as from C: od, but as froma himsetf, it
Was neverthelesse necessary hesonid de so, not that he miche not
have beenpilent if he monld, but because his mill io speak mas an
recedem ly determine d to mhat hesho la speal from all Eternity;
Which hehath vet bronehe no areument ro contradiet.
eapproveth my modesty in suspendine my judcement concern
ine the manner horo the cood Ancells de vork. Nccsarily or
Freely because T find it not set dorn in the Articles ofour Paith.
nir in the decreesof our Church. But he useth not the same modesty
himsels. For hereas hecan apprehend neither the Xature os
God norof Ancels; nor conceive what lind of thine it is, which in
them hecallethrill, he neverthelesse takes nxon him to attribute
tothem. Liberey of Exereile, and to deny ihem a Liberey of Speci
fication; to erant them a more incensive Liberry then me have,
buc not a more excentire; usins not inconeruousty inthe incompre-
hensibiliry of the subject incomprehensible terms, asLiberey otP. xer-
eile, es Liberty oEspecifeation; es decrees of intention in Liberty.
as is one liberty, like heat, mighe be more intensive then anorher.
It is true. that there is freater liberty in a larce then in a strait prio
son, but one of those Liberries is not more intense thenthe other.
(f) His second reatonis, Ie thar ean do what he wil, harh
au Liberer; and he that cannot do mhat he WWill, barh no Liberty.
IEchis betrue, then there are no degrees of Liberey indecd.
Buc chis Which he calls Liberey, is rather an Omniporence, chen
aLiberey.)Tis one thine rosay, a man hath Liberry 10 do
hat heWill, ant another thine to say he hath porver to do hae
he rrill. A man that is bonnd monid say readily hehath not
the Liberty romale, but he mill not say he manes the Porver. But
the siek n an vill lay he mants the Porer to walte. but not the Li-
berry. Thisis as Lconceive rospeate the Enrlist tongue; and
consequently an Fneli  manmill noc sar the Liberry 10 do What
herrill, bat the Pomer 1o do rhat he Will, is Omnipotence. And
cherefore citber Lor the Bishop understand not Enslist. Wrhereas