EUGENIUS I.

AD. 654-657.

 

Emperor. Constans II, 642-668.

Kings. Rothari, 636-652. Aripert I, 653-661.

Exarchs. OLYMPIUS, 649-652. THEODORE CALLIOPAS (second time), 653-664.

 

It is by no means easy to discover what exactly took place at Rome after Martin was forcibly dragged away from it. At first, at any rate, the Church was governed in the manner usual in those days when the Holy See was vacant or the Pope was absent. From the same letter of Pope Martin’s, from which we gather that fact, we know that the exarch Theodore Calliopas tried, and, at least for some time, in vain, to induce the clergy and people of Rome to elect a bishop to take the place of St. Martin. That is, up to the close of the year 654 the archpriest, archdeacon, and primicerius of the notaries were, as the saint thought, still acting for him. Further, when from his place of exile Martin wrote to his friend at Constantinople (in the summer—perhaps in July—of 654, there was again, as far at least as Martin seems to have known, still the same governing body in office at Rome. But when he wrote his second letter  (September 654 to the same friend, the Church again had a single ruler, for Martin tells us that he especially prays for “the one who is now ruling over the Church”.

Meanwhile in Rome, we learn from the Book of the Popes that the Holy See was vacant for one year one month and twenty-five days. Hence reckoning from June 17, 653, when Calliopas declared Martin deposed, we arrive at the conclusion that Eugenius was consecrated August 10, 654.

Knowing the date of the consecration of Eugenius does not enlighten us on other points connected with it. Was Eugenius an anti-pope elected in compliance with the will of the emperor, or was he elected by the clergy and the people, and consecrated, in reliance on the presumed Martin, consent of Pope Martin, as a defensive measure against attempts on the part of Constans to foist a Monothelite on the Church? It would seem that the latter is the correct supposition. It is in harmony with the two statements of Pope Martin, showing that the wishes of Calliopas for another Pope were set at naught, and that he (Martin) recognized Eugenius as Head of the Church. The second conjecture has also in its favor the good character given to Eugenius by his biographer, and the fact that he did not display any signs of being a nominee of the emperor’s. Indeed, from the coarse threat addressed to St. Maximus on the day (September 14, 656) when he was exiled to Salembria, it is abundantly evident that Eugenius was anything but a truckler to the imperial will.  “Know, Lord abbot”, said the emperor’s officers, “that when we get a little rest from this rout of heathens (i.e. the Saracens), by the Holy Trinity, we will treat as we are treating you, the Pope who is now lifted up, and all the talkers there, and the rest of your disciples. And we will roast you all, each in his own place, as Pope Martin has been roasted”.

The first act of Eugenius was to send legates to Constans to announce his election and to present to the emperor a profession of his faith. These apocrisiarii of the Pope must have been simple-minded men, as they received (655, summer) the Monothelite patriarch of Constantinople, Peter, into communion on the strength of his professing “one will upon two wills”, or three wills in Our Lord! Thereupon they were sent back to the Pope, probably with the synodical letter which we know from the Book of the Popes that Peter dispatched to Eugenius, and which will be spoken of presently. However, as St. Maximus remarked, when to win him over to Monothelism he was told of the action of the Pope's legates, “their conduct did not in the least degree prejudice the Roman See, as they had not received any commission to the patriarch”. Their business was with the emperor alone.

From the acts of St. Maximus, it appears that the emperor sent by one Gregory, “an offering to St Peter, and a letter to the Pope (whom we take to be Eugenius), begging him to place himself in communion with the patriarch of Constantinople. Both these things Gregory took to St. Maximus, then at Rome, evidently in the hope that the abbot would further the wishes of his master, the emperor. But the saint gave him to understand that, if the ‘Type’ was to be the basis of reconciliation, the Romans themselves would never tolerate such a union. Nor was he mistaken in his forecast.

According to custom the patriarch Peter addressed a synodical letter to the Pope. But as it was couched in obscure language, and avoided speaking of operations or wills in Our Lord, both clergy and people, indignant that such a letter had been sent, not only utterly refused in a most uproarious manner to accept it, when it was, apparently, read out in the Church of St. Mary Major, but would not suffer the Pope, to say Mass until he had calmed them by assuring them that he would on no account accept the letter. So that Constans, despite his cruelties to SS. Martin and Maximus, and to many other Western bishops, was no nearer than ever getting his ‘Type’ generally accepted.

St. Wilfrid

For Englishmen, and especially for those of the north, a special interest attaches to Pope Eugenius. To Rome in his time came the young Wilfrid, who was ever to be so stout a champion of Rome and its ways, and who, from his early youth, felt drawn towards it, as towards the fountain-head of truth. Before his time it had never been known that any of our nation had ever gone to Rome. A mere youth though he was at this time, Wilfrid had come to the conclusion that the customs of the Celtic community of Lindisfarne, to which he had attached himself, were not as they should be; and so, with the full approval of his brethren, to Rome he went to study the ecclesiastical and monastic rites in use there. Arrived in Rome {(654), he was instructed by the arch­deacon Boniface, one of the Pope’s counselors, and by him presented to the Pope, who, we are told, “placed his blessed hand on the head of the youthful servant of God, prayed for him and blessed him”; and thus sent him home rejoicing, and feeling strong to begin his long and severe, but finally triumphant, struggle with the narrow views of his fellow Celtic monks.

Apart from the fact that he was buried at St. Peter’s, on June 2, 657, we know nothing more about Eugenius, except that he had been brought up from his infancy for the Church and that he was a Roman and the son of one Rufinian, who belonged to the first or Aventine quarter of the city. This was the first of the seven ecclesiastical regions into which Rome had been divided by the popes from the very earliest times.

The history of Eugenius, short though it is, would seem to furnish us with another striking instance of the special watchful providence of God over the See of Peter. Even with the power of the exarch Calliopas hanging over Rome, a man was elected head of the Church who, whatever his leanings and sympathies might have been before he became Pope, showed, when the time came, the same immovable firmness in adhering to the revealed faith as the rock of Peter whence he was hewn.

The fate of Pope Martin did not deter Eugenius from following in his footsteps.

Here we may suitably bring to a close the first part of this volume on the Popes and the Lombards. With the martyrdom of Pope Martin and Maximus (who died a little later, 622) the heat of the Monothelite controversy passed off. To use the words of a contemporary, the waves of Monothelism dashed in vain against the courageous Pontiff of Rome. And when they had been thus broken, they were calmed by the oil poured on them by the diplomatic caution of Pope Vitalian. During his pontificate there succeeded to the empire Constantine Pogonatus, under whom the Monothelite heresy received its coup-de-grace. While in this first part there has been repeatedly brought before our notice what the popes have had to suffer from exarch and Lombard alike, in the next we shall see the rule of the fierce and rude Lombard ended for ever, and the court of the exarch, with all its base cupidity, against which Justinian vainly flattered himself that he had guarded Italy, swept out of the fair land which he and his subordinates had but oppressed. Some modern historians, indeed, led astray by their dreams about United Italy, have expressed regret that the Lombards did not capture Rome and subdue the whole peninsula, but not one among them has breathed a sigh of sorrow that the Byzantine was driven from Ravenna. But if Rome and Italy had not been saved by the popes from the uncultured Lombard, the history of Europe would have had a very different complexion. For certain it is that in the days of the Lombard, Rome was the centre of such civilization as there was in the West. And had it fallen beneath the lance of the Lombard, it may well be doubted whether there would now be a number of distinguished Western historians to rejoice over that happy event!

 

VITALIAN.