Of course Cudworth lacks any realization of the abstract- concrete paradox, and he asserts rather than explicates the incompatibility of perfection with contingency. On this second point, Anselm is more helpful.
No more than with Descartes, Spinoza, Cudworth, or most of those we shall have to deal with is there evidence that Leibniz knew the contents of the Proslogium (after the by themselves scarcely intelligible first two chapters). My guess is that he did not. He was, however, too much a meta- physician to be wholly victimized by the Gaunilo tradition. Like Scotus, but first among the moderns, he sees the need of establishing the logical possibility of the theistic concept, and he attempts to meet this need, partly by connecting the problem of logical possibility with the principles which he believes underlie logic generally, an intelligent procedure, if it can be carried through successfully. Like Thomas (and all the great theists) he is clear that if we know anything at all about God we know that He could not exist contingently. Unlike Thomas, but like all the Ontologists, he disbelieves in the sensory origin of the most universal conceptions. God is a direct datum of the soul, always given but not always attended to.
One of the best-known passages of Leibniz concerning the Argument betrays the persistent influence of Anselm's initial blunder (see Part One, Secs. 6, 19, 20).
To exist is something more than not to exist, or rather, existence adds a degree to grandeur and perfection, and as Descartes states it, existence is itself a perfection. Therefore this