MODESTUS: Anti-Gnostic writer. According to Eusebius (Hist. seer., IV., w., of. xxi.), an otherwise unknown Modestus, contemporary of Philip of Gortyna end Irenesus, wrote an impress ive, but no longer extant, tract against Mareion. Jerome (De roer. ill., iii.) refers to other syntsg mats by Modestus, which "are regarded as spuri ous by the learned." The source of this intelligence is no longer ascertainable. G. Badana.

MOEHLER, mv'ler, JOHANN ADAM: Roman Catholic historian; b. at Igersheim (37 m, s.s.w. of Würzburg), Württemberg, May 8, 1798; d. at Würzburg Apr. 12, 1838. In 1814 he entered the lyceum of Ellwangen, devoting himself to the study of philosophy and theology, and, in 1817, removed with the Roman Catholic faculty to Tübingen. He was ordained priest in 1819, and became vicar at Weilerstadt and Riedlingen, but soon returned to Tübingen to prepare himself for academic ac. tivity; in 1820 he became repetent, and was in vited by the theological faculty to become privat docent in church history and its related branches (1822). After visiting various universities he be gan in 1823 to lecture on church history, petrology, and church polity: A series of essays written at that time for tile Tubtrlger Quartalschrift (after his death collected and published by Döllinger, in CJesam»ielte Schriften and Au ja6tie, 2 vols., Regena. burg, 1839-40) reveals an almost Protestant stand point. Among other abuses of the Roman Catholic Church he attacked the withholding of the cup from the laity and the use of the Latin language in worship. His first larger work, Die Einheit der Kirche oder tlaa Pr(.nzip den Knthdiciafnua, dafgerrtellt im (ieiate der Ifirchent4tel' der drei eratert Jahrhan tierEe (Tübiugen, 1825, 2d ed., 1843), attracted con siderable attention among scholars. Möhler dis tinguishes between the mystical unity of the Holy Spirit, which unites all believers in a spiritual com munity, sad the rational unity, which unites them in the doctrine of the Church as the intellectual ex pression of the Christian spirit, in opposition to the heresies as the plurality without a unity; and finally between the unity in the plurality, that is, the preservation of the individuality in the unity of believers. In the second part of the work the

430

bishop is considered as forming the center of the unity of the congregation. A higher ecclesiastical unity is concentrated in the metropolitan and the synod, a still higher in the entire episcopate and the highest in the Roman primacy, the development of which by gradual steps is proved from the historical conditions of antiquity and Medievalism. The work did not escape giving offense in Roman Catholic circles, but it established the fame of the young man. It was followed in the next year by another large work, Athanasius der Grosse und die Kirche saner Zest, besonders im Kampf mit dent Arianismus (Mainz, 1827; 2d ed., 1844), which proved to be in perfect harmony with the views of the Roman Catholic Church, offering a picture of the labors and struggles of the Church in the fourth century. In 1827 the author was appointed professor of church history at Tübingen. His lectures drew large audiences, and exercised great influence. Nevertheless, his KirchengeachiMte (published by P. B. Gams, 3 vols., Regensburg, 1867-70) is not his chief work. He felt that Roman Catholic theology was sorely in need of a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the principles of the Reformation, and of the divergencies between Romanism and Protestantism, and after an exhaustive study of the symbolical books of the two confessions, he published his Symbolik oder Darstellung der dogmatischen Gegensatze der Katholiken and Protestanten (Mainz, 1832; 5th ed., enlarged and improved by Reithmayer, 1838; 7th ed., 1864, Eng. transl. by J. R. Robertson, Symbolism, or Exposition of the Doctrinal Differences between Catholics and Protestants as evidenced by their Symbolical Writings, 2 vols., London, 1843; 5th ed., 1 vol., 1906). There is considerable idealization in his representation of Romanism; and his representation of Protestantism is not altogether free from caricature. The sensation which the work produced was great, even among Protestants. F. C. Baur wrote against it (Der Gegensatz des Katholieismus and Protestantismus, Tübingen, 1834), as well as C. I. Nitzaeh (Eire protestantiwhe Beandwortung der Symbolik Mbhlers, Hamburg, 1835), and others. Möhler answered in Neue Untersuchungen der Lehrgegensatze zwischen Katholiken and Protestanten (Mainz, 1834); and a protracted controversy began. This controversy, especially with his colleague, F. C. Baur, made his stay in TUbiagen unpleasant, and in 1835 he ac6epted a call to Munich. The climate of that place did not agree with his constitution, and his health failed. Shortly before his death he retired to Würzburg as dean of the chapter.

(A. Hauck.)

Bibliography: A life by Reithmayer was prefixed to the 5th ad. of the'Sym6olik, Mainz, 1838, and a sketch by the -Ante author is in KL, viii. 1677-1689. Other lives we by B. Warmer, Regensburg, 1866; J. Friedrich, Munich, 1894; A. Knapfer, ib.1896; L. Monastier, Lumnne, 1897.