# Leibniz Legible — https://leibnizlegible.com
# Page: https://leibnizlegible.com/page/727097563:0165
# Permalink to this reading: https://leibnizlegible.com/page/727097563:0165?run=74
# Title: A Discourse In Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity (shelfmarks ZEN Leibn. Marg. 40; Leibn. Marg. 40)
# Folio 93, page id 727097563:0165
# Original at the GWLB: https://digitale-sammlungen.gwlb.de/resolve?id=727097563&page=165
# Source image: https://digitale-sammlungen.gwlb.de/content/727097563/jpgs/default/00000165.jpg
# Model: FoNDUE-GD_v2_ft_Leibniz, run 74, 2026-09-06T16:05:13Z — 54 lines, status machine
# Lines: 54 recognised, mean confidence 0.79
# 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.

Cd i
Es
piue
rC1I
bes
bele
IE
V Ed
ex I
LDII
redi
Divi
COM
et
e
N
the Doctrine of the Frinier.
nies asto the dirine Nature; For his words
arc, that it is adtaiec)  dia naons Erroias
in ans consideration wrhacloever. Then
he must destroy the Typostases. Noc (0
neither, For he allons chacchere is a dia-
Poca a5 to the TEypostases hovever. FOr
he propoles the Objection himselt, That
by allomine no difference in the divine Na-
ture, the Fypostases vould be confounded.
To Whrich he antivers, That he did not
deny their difference, which vas founded
in the relation they had to one another:
Wvhrich he chere explains; and
that therein onty consists the
difference ofthe Persons. Whict
15 a very considerable teltimo
ny, tottem chat boch Petavi-
us and Curcellaeus mistock
Grecory NyssenSmeanins. BuE
On 30 anCOGANAN
reV 55 DVorcoS duonoser-
TE5 IV XX +0 ai nOVNi a
naeror stapoeur un ae–
VouEda Er io voreocta–
nelvEdat 2d ETECeV 50
ETEBS YATARA MBAVOVEY.
chere are other arsuments to prove it.
2. He alteres luch a difference betreen
the dirine and human Persons, as is un
ansverable, viz. the vnity of Operation.
For, Caith he, amons Men, if severat e0
about the same Work, vet every particular
Person vortes by himsels, and therefore they
may veil be called many; because every one
is circumscribed: but in the divine Per-
sons he proves that it is quité otherwise,
for they all concurr in the Action towards