THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
November, 1149, according to which Rome acknowledged the supremacy of the pope, but the government of the city remained in the hands of t he senate. Arnold exercised Ins influence as before. When Frederick I. became ruler, Eugenius obtained his promise of a campaign against Rome. But the Arnoldists also applied to him in a writing, the strange contents of which may be regarded as an echo of Arnold's sermons. It declares that clerics who in spite of the gospel and the canonical rules claimed for themselves the right of confirming the emperor are successors of Julian the Apostate; the Donation of Constantine is a heretical fable, which even the every-day Roman ridicules; as the empire belongs to the Romans, who should hinder them from electing a new emperor ? It is possible that such eccentric schemes repelled the more prudent elements. At the elections of Nov. 1, 1152, the Arnoldists seem to have been defeated, for the senate is soon found in negotiation with the pope, and he was enabled to make his entrance in December. A little later Frederick promised to subdue the Romans.
When Adrian IV. ascended the papal throne Dec. 5, 1154, he demanded of the senate the expulsion of Arnold, which for the time being was not heeded. But an attack made upon a cardinal gave opportunity, shortly before Palm Sunday, 1155, to pronounce an interdict on Rome, — a
hitherto unheard-of proceeding. The
4. Condem- depression which already existed in
nation and the city was enhanced by this measure,
Death. and on Wednesday the senate appeared
before the pope and obtained the removal of the interdict by swearing to expel Arnold and his adherents. Arnold's fate was now decided. Banished from Rome, he found indeed a refuge with the viscounts of Campagnatico, but, urged by the pope, Frederick induced them to hand him over to Adrian. The city-prefect, as Rome's criminal judge, delivered him to the gallows, had his body burned, and the ashes thrown into the Tiber. He died lamented even by men who, like Gerhoh of Reichersberg, by no means agreed with him. The j;reat cause of his death was no doubt his opposition to the worldly power of the pope. But he was also regarded as a heretic. That he held false doctrines regarding baptism has not been substantiated; but he declared that the sacraments administered by priests not leading an apostolic life were invalid, and herein one could see a rejection of the official Church and hence a heresy. That Arnold left many followers is evident from the Historia pontificalia, and in the great bull of excommunication of Lucius III. (1184), Arnoldists are mentioned. Thenceforth only isolated notices concerning them are found; they were probably lost among the Waldensians.
S. M. Deutsch.
Bibliography: Sources are: Otto of Freising, De gestis Friderici, i. 27-28, ii. 21, in MOH, Script, xx. (1868)338-491 and ed. G. Waitz in Script, rer. Germ., JLinover, 1NN4; John of Salisbury, Ilistorvi pontificalis, xxxi., in MGII , Script., xx. (1868) 515-545; Gunther, Ligurinus, iii., in MPL, ccxii.; Gerhoh of RoichersbiTK, De investigatione antichrish, xlii., in MPL, exriv.; Bono, Vita Hadriam IV., in J. M. Watlerich, I'mitificum Romanorum vitir, ii.
324-325, Leipsic, 1862; Gesta di Federigo I. in Italia (Publications of the Istituto Storico Italiano), Rome, 1887. Consult also F. Odorici, Storie Bresciane, iv., Brescia, 1858; W. von Giesebrecht, Arnold von Brescia, Munich, 1895; idem, Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserzeit, iv., v., Brunswick, 1880—88; G. de Castro, Arnold da Brescia, Leghorn, 1875; W. Bernhardi, Jahrbiicher des deutschen Reichs unter Konrad III., Leipsic, 1883; E. Vacaudard, Arnauld de Brescia, in Revue des questions historigues, xxxv. (1884) 52-114; A. Hausrath, Arnold von Brescia, Leipsic, 1891.
ARNOLD, CARL FRANKLIN: German Lutheran; b. at Williams field, O., Mar. 10, 1853. He was educated at the gymnasium at Bremen and the universities of Erlangen, Leipsic, and Konigsberg (Ph.D., 1882). He was instructor in religion at the Wilhelms-Gymnasium in Konigsberg from 1878 to 1888, when he was appointed professor of church history in the University of Breslau. Since 1898 he has also been ephorus of the Grafliches Ledemtzky'sches Johanneum. In theology he is an advocate of positive union. He has written Studien zur Geschichte der plinianischen Christenverfolgung (Konigsberg, 1887); Die neronische Christenverfolgung (Leipsic, 1888); Auswahl aus J. G. Hamanns Briefen und Schrijten (Gotha, 1888); Ccesarius von Arelate und die gallische Kirche seiner Zeit (Leipsic, 1894); Predigten des Ccesarius von Arelate in deutscher Uebersetzung (1895); Die Vertreibung der Salzburger Protestanten und ihre Aufnahme bei den Glaubensgenossen (1900); Die Ausrottung des Protestantismus in Salzburg unter Erzbischoj Firmian und seinen Nachfolgern (1901); Protestantisches Leben in den Vereinigten Staaten (1903). He edited the fifth and sixth editions of H. Weingarten's Zeittajeln und Ueberblicke zur Kirchengeschichte (1897, 1906).
ARNOLD, GOTTFRIED: Lutheran; b. at Annaberg (18 m. s. of Chemnitz), Saxony, Sept. 5, 1666; d. at Perleberg (75 m. n.w. of Berlin), Prussia, May 30, 1714. In 1685 he began the study of theology at Wittenberg but gave himself up to independent reading in early church history. Through the influence of Spener, then court preacher at Dresden, he became tutor in a noble family of that city in 1689, and later obtained a similar position at Quedlinburg. There be became identified with the most prominent exponents of mystic and separatist teachings and in 1696 published Die erste Liebe (ed. A. C. Lammert, Stuttgart, 1S44), a eulogy on the early Christian Church in which his hostility to dogma and ecclesiasticism led liim to exalt the virtues of the primitive Church as opposed to the formulism of later orthodoxy. In 1697 he became professor of history atGiessen, but found himself out of sympathy with the practical nature of his duties and returned in the following year to Quedlinburg. In 1699-1700 he published his Unparteiische Kirchen- und Kctzcr-Historic (4 vols.; new ed., Frankfort, 1729), which had a marked influence on church history. In studying heretical movements Arnold refused to accept as authority the evidence of hostile contemporaries and drew upon the writings of the sectaries themselves for his materials. In view of his constitutional opposition to orthodox- doctrine this method naturally led to his assuming a position extremely favorable to the separatists of various ages and