# Leibniz Legible — https://leibnizlegible.com
# Page: https://leibnizlegible.com/page/727097563:0029
# Permalink to this reading: https://leibnizlegible.com/page/727097563:0029?run=74
# Title: A Discourse In Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity (shelfmarks ZEN Leibn. Marg. 40; Leibn. Marg. 40)
# Folio XXIII, page id 727097563:0029
# Original at the GWLB: https://digitale-sammlungen.gwlb.de/resolve?id=727097563&page=29
# Source image: https://digitale-sammlungen.gwlb.de/content/727097563/jpgs/default/00000029.jpg
# Model: FoNDUE-GD_v2_ft_Leibniz, run 74, 2026-09-06T16:05:13Z — 32 lines, status machine
# Lines: 32 recognised, mean confidence 0.93
# 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.

The PR F F A CF.
Son: Tea, suppose some spicefult Adversary
Bould Cay, That et is a Contradiction 10
Cay. That the same common Nature canmake
a Per son oith a Mode superadded 20 it, unte(s
that be individuared. for a Per (on doth im-
ply an individuat Nature, and not a mere
relative Mode. Is this sufficient to charee
such a Person with the Sabellian Herely.
Wwhich he ueterly disoons: I5 not thelike F-
quitytobe seu d in another thouch different
Explication: Suppose then a Per son solemn-
ly prosesses to oon the fundament al Doctrine
ofthe Trinitr as much as any oibers; but
hethints, that three Persons must have di-
stinct Substances to make them Persons, but
S0 as to make no Division or Separation in
the Codhead, and that he cannoi conceive a
Communication of the divine Fssence with-
out this; must this presentlr be run doon as
Hlerele, When he asserts at the same time
three persons in the same undivided Fs
sence: But this is said to be a Contradicti-
On; so it vas in the other case and not al-
lou d then, and vohy sould it be otherwise
in this: Y speate not this to justisie such F.X-
plications, but to Bew that there is a dif-
ference between the Hlerelie of denyine an
arricle, and a mistate in the Lxplication
of it. Fven the createst TTerese-makers
in the worid, distinguist between Lleresies
aMC