# Leibniz Legible — https://leibnizlegible.com
# Page: https://leibnizlegible.com/page/727097563:0045
# Permalink to this reading: https://leibnizlegible.com/page/727097563:0045?run=74
# Title: A Discourse In Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity (shelfmarks ZEN Leibn. Marg. 40; Leibn. Marg. 40)
# Folio XXXIX, page id 727097563:0045
# Original at the GWLB: https://digitale-sammlungen.gwlb.de/resolve?id=727097563&page=45
# Source image: https://digitale-sammlungen.gwlb.de/content/727097563/jpgs/default/00000045.jpg
# Model: FoNDUE-GD_v2_ft_Leibniz, run 74, 2026-09-06T16:05:13Z — 34 lines, status machine
# Lines: 34 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 AC F.
my purpose, that he denied the individuat
Unitr ofthe divine FVence, Which cannot
be chareed on the Author of the neW Fx
plication, and so this comes not home to
the purpose.
3. But the last charge is the most terri-
ble, for it not onty sets donnthe Herelie,
but the capital punistoment Which follo d
it. Tet Tsal make it appear, (notvith.
standine the very warm Prolecation of ic by
another hand) that there is a creat disse-
rence between the Doctrine of Valentinus
Centilis, and that which is asserted in this
Explication.
I. In the Sentence of his Condemnation
it is expressed, Thac he had been guilty Brief A-
count os
oF che vilest Scurrility and most horrid valentin
Blasphemies asainst the son ot crod and cencilis,
the slorious Myctery of theTrinity. But P. 132.
can aur thine of this Nature be chareed up-
on onc, Who hath not only voritten in De-
fence of it, but speates of it with the hich.
est Veneration:
2. In the same Sentence it is said, TH2C
he achnomledged the Father only tobe ibid.
that intinite Crcd wrhich re ouxheto or-
Cip, irhich is plain Blasphemr asainst
the Son. But can any Men ever think to
make this the same case withone, who mates
use of that as one of bis chies arguments,
EMaE
XXXIX