Spinola, ('iiuisroi-ifKic Ho.ias i>e, a Roman Cath- olic iiiiionist of the I7tb cenliiry, was ffeneral of the Order of |-'raiicis^-ans in Madriil, then confessor of the emprest Tlieresa (wife (.f Leopold I) of Austria, and linally bishop of Wiener- Neustadt. He <lied March 12, l»".'.t."». lie was a skilful diplomatist rather than a t;renl theologian, and as mich devoted years of zealous effort to the task of winning back the I'rritestants, more particularly die I'roicHianis of Hungary and (iermany, to the l.'oinijb Cburcb. The perio.l seemc<l favorable for Miicb an undertaking, because many of ibe courts of I'rotMitnnt (iermany were swayed by a spirit of iudiflir- eiicc t<( religion, while among the people many of the more iulelligent were weary of the inees.sant polemical enaiunters of theological zealots in every department of the Church. Spinola believed that jieaceful negoti- ation mi-bt acconijilixb what violent measures had failed to iUVrt; aud in 1071, after conference with the
papal nuncio and authorization by the emperor, he ap- proached difTerent |)rinces and rulers with bis plans, which were received with some consideration by reason it{ the emperor's endorsement, but also with much dis- trust. He found a most favorable reception in Hano- ver, whose rulers were Roman Catholics, and whose leading theologian, Molanus (q. v.), and leading philos- opher, Leibnitz (q. v.), were both inclined to favor the proposed union. In 1G83 Spinola personally ottered the following concessions, which, however, were not in writ- ing: the eomnuinion under both kinds; marriage for priests, and non-alienation of spiritual properties which had been secularized ; suspension of the decrees of Trent, and consent that the "Xeo- Catholics" shonhl not be obliged to make formal retraction, and that they should be atlmitted to participation in a general council, for which provision was to be made. In return, the Protestants were to acknowledge the supremacy of the pope. Molanus thereupon convened a conference of theologians, which drew up a memorial in response to Spinola ((Kurres de Bosgiiet [ed. Versailles], xxv, 205, Re(/ul<e circa Chrittianorum Omnium Ecclesiasticam Re- unionem), and which put forth a further tractate, in the main acceding to Spinola's proposition (Mef/iodiis Re- ditrcndtp ['nioni'i Ecdes. inter Romanos et Protest antes'). Fortunately no considerable interest in the business was taken by either Church. Bossuet, for example, politely received the papers which were transmitted to him, and then ignored their existence; and when subsequently Leibnitz and Molanus corresponded with him in refer- ence to the subject, he plainly rejected Spinola's terms, and demanded unconditional submission to the pope and the Tridentine Council. The landgrave Ernest of Hesse-Rheinfels, on the other hand, asserted that the sole purpose of the movement was to compromise cer- tain princes and theologians with their own party. Ne- gotiations were nevertheless carried on until 1694, and Spinola was made commissioner -general in charge of the union movement throughout the empire. He re- tained his hopes of success to the last, but died without having achieved any success whatever. His successor, bishop Graf of Buchheim, renewed the inquiry at the court of Hanover with respect to a possible unification of the churches, and Leibnitz repeated his endeavor to achieve a satisfactory result through the co-operation of Bossuet (1699-1701), but in vain. See Gieseler, Kirchengesch. iv, 177-181; Hering, Gesch. d. kirchl. Unionxrersiiche (1838); Zedlitz, Universal-Lexikon, s. v.; the art. Leibnitz u. d. Kirchenvereiniyung in the Grenz- boleii, 1860, N'os. 44 and 45. — Herzog, Real-Encyklop. s. v. Spinoza, Bkxkdu r dk {Baruch), the most ingen- ious, acute, and remarkable of the metaphysicians of the 17th century; etiually notable for the simplicity, disin- terestedness, and purity of his life, and for the rigor- ous form and unhesitating audacity of his speculations. " Everything in Spinoza appears extraordinary,"' says Saisset — •' himself, his style, and his philosophy." There is, perhaps, no other instance of a philosopher who so completely develo])ed and systematized his scheme as to leave scarcely the possibility of addition or change. Others have been more original in their princi]iles; scarcely any have been more self-inspired in their de- ductions and in the organization of their systems. None have been more sincere, more earnest, and more assured ill their ]irocedure. None have more contidently as- sumed their premises; none have more rigidly imrsued the consequences of their data to their extremest results. Spinoza left no disciples. He has had few followers, and hardly a single imitator. Yet he was a power in the realm of abstract thought, and remains a laiidniark in the history of philosophy. He pressed the tenden- cies of his predecessors far beyond their ventures. He was a terror and a torment to the next generation. He exercised a potent influence on metaphysical |)rogress, not by making discoveries, but by provoking eager, and too often virulent, antagonism. For a century the name as well as the ilogmas of Spinoza were regarded
SPINOZA
9.35
SPINOZA
with unmititjated abhorrence. He was denounced from the pulpit on every possible occasion. He was present- ed as an object of bitter contempt in pamphlet and es- say and ponderous volume. Bayle held him up to the scorn of his readers as "a systematical atheist." Leib- nitz, gentle to all others, had little gentleness for him, and constructed his own philosophy to refute his errors and to correct the tendencies of his scheme. Herkeley endeavored to rectify and Christianize his theory of mind and of matter; and Hume imitated his assump- tions and endeavored to imitate his deductions. For coherence of logical evolution, for unshrinking and nn- deviating misapplication of mathematical demonstra- tion to speculative topics, for impassive and colorless reasoning in abstract formulas, for fearlessness in the acceptance of conclusions, no other ontologist can be compared to Spinoza. The ]ieril threatened by his doc- trines justified the fervor of resistance with which they were encountered. It did not excuse the bitterness and intemperance with which they and their author were assailed. A milder and juster criticism has in later years been manifested. There is, indeed, some danger that the vicious tendencies of his system may be insutfi- cientlv apprehended in the kindlier consideration-of the man whose life was innocent and free from blame, and who was fearfully misled in his ardent prosecution of truth by devious and mistaken paths. The ajiproach and the recent occurrence of the anniversary of Spino- za's death, after the lapse of two centuries, revived in- terest in the man and in his labors. Treatises on his life and doctrine were multiplied. His works were re- published with diligent care. New and unedited frag- ments were discovered and given to the world. At the bicentenary celebration at the Hague he was com- memorated, in a striking address, by Ernest Renan, in some respects his counterpart in the 19th century. The praise of one who, living, and long after death, had been contemned of nearly all men went abroad into every land, and found sympathizing echoes wherever it went. These alternate fits of chill and fever are frequent in the historj' of opinion. In the case of suoh a philosopher as Spinoza, unmeasured praise is even more alarming than unmitigated censure. What is required is a cool and just estimate, which shall explain the origin and char- acter of his philosophy — shall expose its invaliditj' and its mischievous tendency, and shall yet deal tenderly with the great thinker, and acknowledge the serene virtues of the man. It would be a fearful judgment for the soberest and soundest of reasoners if they were held responsible for all their thoughts and for all the possible tendencies of their thoughts. Something of the mercy which all men may require ^ould be shown in the esti- mation of our fellow-men when their speculatlnns — hon- est, and free from malice or intention to misguide — wan- der most widely and most hazardously from the truths that we revere and the dogmas that we regard as ortho- dox.