# Leibniz Legible — https://leibnizlegible.com
# Page: https://leibnizlegible.com/page/727097563:0179
# Permalink to this reading: https://leibnizlegible.com/page/727097563:0179?run=74
# Title: A Discourse In Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity (shelfmarks ZEN Leibn. Marg. 40; Leibn. Marg. 40)
# Folio 107, page id 727097563:0179
# Original at the GWLB: https://digitale-sammlungen.gwlb.de/resolve?id=727097563&page=179
# Source image: https://digitale-sammlungen.gwlb.de/content/727097563/jpgs/default/00000179.jpg
# Model: FoNDUE-GD_v2_ft_Leibniz, run 74, 2026-09-06T16:05:13Z — 38 lines, status machine
# Lines: 38 recognised, mean confidence 0.86
# 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.

O
AVE
ep
DIC
the Doctrine of the Trinier.
Parties mean What ther Cay, ertrere lies
the disterence: Ir is lufficient for my
purpose that cher are aorred, that there
ean be no Division a5 to the divine Fs
sence by the distinction oF PerTonS. And
Cothis palsire oF the Arhanasian Creed
holds g0od Neither confoundine the Per-
sons nor dividine the Substance.
The nexe Article, as it is Pet domnin
the Nores on Athanasius bis Creed, I5 a
contradiction to chis. For there it runS,
BC
ec
There is one Substance oF che Father.
another ot the Son, another oF thC
IToly Chost. They mishe well charse
it vich Contradictions at ehis rate. BuE
that is a plain mistake For Person; For
chere is no other varieer in the Copies
but this, that Bayscus his Circeke Copy
hacha osaois, and that ot Constantinople
coccoco but allene Latin Copies Persona.
Buc What consequence do ther draw trom
tence: Then, lay cher, the Son is not the
Father nor is the Father the Son, nor the
FToly Chost either of them. IF chey hac
Dut in Person, as thez oughe rohare donc,
ic is irhat re d0 omn. And Wvhat FOl.
lOWS. Is the Father bé not the Son, and
vet isthe one true Cod, then the Son is not
the one true Cod, because he is not the l’a-
ther. The one true C0d may be calen
EWC