ON SS. ROGATIAN AND FELICISSIMUS: ROGATIAN, PRESBYTER, AND FELICISSIMUS, A LAYMAN, CONFESSORS, AT CARTHAGE IN AFRICA,
AFTER THE MIDDLE OF THE THIRD CENTURY.
HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.
Rogatian, confessor at Carthage in Africa. (S.)
Felicissimus, confessor at Carthage in Africa. (S.)
BY B. B.
§ single. What is known of SS. Rogatian and Felicissimus we have from the epistles of St. Cyprian, two of which are addressed to St. Rogatian. In these more than one difficulty occurs, to be either explained or resolved. In other epistles of the same holy prelate of Carthage St. Rogatian is splendidly commended, who, it is established, was also the vicar of St. Cyprian in the case of the schismatic Felicissimus. Both saints are wrongly called martyrs by the Martyrologists.
SS. Rogatian and Felicissimus are known to us from no other source than from the epistles of St. Cyprian, Memorial bishop of Carthage, and a few martyrologists, who manifestly drew from the holy Doctor, adding some things of their own. Now what St. Cyprian reports belongs far more probably to the years 250 and 251; to the former from the month of February or March, to the latter down to April, the time, namely, when the holy Martyr, after a withdrawal of nearly fourteen months, returned to Carthage, from which he had departed about the end of February of the year 250.
[2] and a compendium of their life. It will be of use, before we come to particulars, to present summarily the deeds of the Saints. Rogatian was a presbyter of the church of Carthage; Felicissimus a layman, of whom we know very little. When at the opening of the year 250 the persecution began at Carthage, at the order of the city magistrates (the proconsul Fortunatianus was absent), SS. Rogatian and Felicissimus were seized and thrust into prison. Both manfully confessed Christ, going before their fellow captives by their example. Wherefore St. Cyprian calls Rogatian a glorious old man; to whom we also have two epistles of his addressed by name. And from other letters of the same holy Doctor we learn that money was more than once given or sent to him by the holy Bishop, to be paid out to the poor; that Rogatian together with St. Numidicus (of whom with us on the 9th of August) and Virtius, a most faithful and upright presbyter, kept watch lest the flock should suffer graver injuries through the absence of the pastor, unceasingly strengthening the faithful with their admonitions, and tempering with prudent counsel the preposterous desires of the penitents and especially of the Lapsed, who were asking for the peace of the church, their constancy for the future being not yet sufficiently proved. These same men, together with two bishops, Cyprian, while still absent, appointed his vicars, on whom it fell to provide for the needs of the poor, and to examine those to be promoted to orders. Nor did they cease to inform the holy Prelate carefully of all that was happening. So they disclosed the machinations of Felicissimus (far different from our Saint of the same name), a powerful and restless man, against whom Cyprian ordered the sentence of excommunication to be fulminated; which was intrepidly carried into execution by them, before the holy Doctor, leaving his hiding places, was restored to his church in the month of April of the year 251, at which time the persecution in Africa had wholly subsided. It is very probable that SS. Rogatian and Felicissimus survived the Decian storm and closed their day in peace; and so are not properly to be called Martyrs Cf. Baillet, Vies des Saints, 26 Oct.. Let these things be said in general. Let us discuss the particulars or, as there shall be need, render them more explicit.
[3] [Whether St. Rogatian is different from Sergius, of whom mention is made in St. Cyprian?] We have called St. Rogatian a presbyter of the church of Carthage; and he is consequently other than the bishop of the same name of Nova in Mauritania, to whom there exists an epistle of St. Cyprian Migne, Patrologia lat., vol. IV, cols. 393–397.. Since according to Baluze's recension epistle LXXXI bears the inscription: Cyprian to Sergius and Rogatian and the other confessors, perpetual salvation in the Lord Ibid., col. 424., a doubt has arisen among many [Cf. Baillet, where cited above in the margin. Tillemont, Mémoires, vol. IV, p. 604 and following.] whether the name of Sergius refers to a different person, or is only a first name of Rogatian. It is certain that the word Sergius is lacking in many codices not to be despised. It is not found, says Baluze Migne, col. 425., in the Vatican codex 195, nor in that of Grenoble, nor finally in that of Lamoignon. That it did not exist either in an excellent old codex is clear from the annotation of Nicolas Le Fèvre, placed in a copy of Pamelius' edition, in which that most learned man noted that in that codex there is read simply “To Rogatian and the other confessors,” as is also found in the codex of St. Arnulf. In the course of the whole epistle no mention whatever of Sergius occurs, while Rogatian is splendidly commended and is proposed as an example to the other confessors held in the same prison, that they may persevere bravely in the contest: that you may follow in all things the presbyter Rogatian, etc. From these things it is surely easy to infer that St. Rogatian stood forth, in the mind of St. Cyprian, as the leader of the others; why then should he not have addressed his epistle primarily to him? Whence the conjecture does not seem absurd to me that Sergius is a first name of Rogatian and that the copulative and is to be deleted. Nevertheless, the works of the holy Bishop having been edited with more accurate study, they make the beginning of the epistle: To Sergius and Rogatian etc. So, notes Baluze Migne, vol. IV, col. 424., Pamelius edited it and others after him; and three old exemplars present that reading. Others have “Seagrius” or “Seugeius.” In the old one of Reims: “Cyprian to Sergius and Rogatian and Victor and Felicissimus and the other confessors.” But as to some old books and editions having “to Rogatian the younger,” the English rightly judged that this was wrongly placed, who have shown by many reasons that this opinion of theirs is true. If, then, we stand by the published writings of St. Cyprian, Sergius is different from Rogatian, although for other reasons, which I have noted above, the contrary opinion is not altogether to be despised. Could it not also be said that the word Sergius crept in, since there is such a variety of readings at this place? Tillemont is surprised that this difficulty was passed over by Pearson, the most diligent writer of the Annales Cyprianici Mémoires, vol. IV, p. 604..
[4] Two epistles of St. Cyprian addressed to St. Rogatian; We have two epistles of St. Cyprian addressed to St. Rogatian and the other confessors; nor is there any controversy on this matter; but they dispute at what time they were sent. Moreover there is no one who does not know how much the learned have differed among themselves in arranging the epistles of the holy Doctor in chronological series. Thus as regards those two of which there is question for us, the editors disagree wonderfully. One, which comes sixth in order in Fell, bishop of the Anglican church at Oxford, is the eighty-first in Pamelius and Baluze; the other in turn, thirteenth in order in Fell, comes seventh in Pamelius, sixth in Rigault and Baluze (because these strike out the first of all). So that what is first in some is later in others, and that by an interval of some years. This is not the place to dispute more fully on the order in which all the letters of the holy Prelate are to be placed. Let it suffice to have indicated for what reasons we assent to Fell and Pearson rather than to Pamelius and his follower Baluze, and are of opinion that both epistles were written at about the same time, namely in the first months after the Decian persecution was set in motion. Moreover we have the agreement of Dom Ceillier Auteurs ecclésiastiques, vol. III, p. 66., Schoenemann Bibliotheca patrum latin., vol. I, p. 81 and following., and as regards the first, also of Morcelli Africa Christiana, vol. II, p. 102. Ibid., p. 110.; who ascribes the latter to the opening of the year 251 Ibid., p. 110.. Nor does Tillemont altogether dissent Mémoires, vol. IV, p. 604., declaring that epistle 81 can be referred to the year of Christ 250, while Pamelius relegates it to the times of Valerian, under whom St. Cyprian suffered in the year of the Lord 258.
[5] they contend that one of them was written after the return of the holy Prelate It is agreed among all that the epistle which is the thirteenth in Pearson's recension, seventh to Pamelius, sixth to Rigault and Baluze, was written at the time when, the persecution of Decius raging, the holy bishop of Carthage had withdrawn. The whole hinge of the difficulty turns on the other epistle. Let us hear Dom Maran, to whom, as Schoenemann expresses it Biblioth., vol. I, p. 105., there fell the province of completing the works of St. Cyprian begun by Baluze but interrupted by his death, a man by no means, whether in talent or in ecclesiastical learning,
inferior to Baluze, whichever you regard. He, then, in the life of St. Cyprian which he prefixed to the new edition of the works, discourses thus Migne, vol. IV, col. 143.: This epistle Pamelius and Baronius number among the last of Cyprian, and think it was written in the persecution of Valerian. They are led especially by this reason, that Rogatian, presbyter and confessor, who it is established survived after the persecution of Decius, is said in this epistle LXXXI to have poured out his life for Christ with Felicissimus. And this indeed accords with the ecclesiastical records, in which, says Baronius, “the solemnity of the birthday of Rogatian and Felicissimus, who suffered on one day, has been recorded on the 7th before the Kalends of November.” On the contrary Pearson contends that this epistle was written under Decius, when Cyprian was in hiding, and he proves this from the first words of the epistle: “I greet you, dearest brethren, myself also desiring to enjoy the sight of you, if the condition of the place permitted me to come to you.” Now thus Cyprian is accustomed to speak from his withdrawal, as in epistle V: “And since the condition of the place does not now permit me to be present;” and in epistle XXXVII to the same clergy: “Would that the condition of my place and rank permitted me to be now present myself.” Whence Pearson concludes that by these words is denoted not the exile of Cyprian under Valerian, but his withdrawal under Decius. And the place from which it is judged that Rogatian had died, he thinks is to be taken in an altogether different sense, and that an error crept into the ecclesiastical records, in that Usuard, Ado and others without examination followed Bede, who cites these letters of Cyprian and teaches from them that Rogatian and Felicissimus were crowned with martyrdom (this is altogether otherwise: for neither Bede, nor Florus, nor any auctaria mention those Saints See Acta SS., vol. II of March, p. XXXVI.). The opinion of Pearson pleases Tillemont; but yet it is seen from many things that this epistle was written not in the withdrawal, but at Carthage, when Rogatian had already died, though not under Valerian, but under Gallus and Volusian, namely in the year 252, as the same Maran reports elsewhere Migne, vol. IV, cols. 189 and 190.. Behold three opinions. The first with Pearson ascribes the epistle to the opening of the year 250; the second, with Pamelius and Baluze, to the year 257 or the following; the third to after the year 252, with Maran, who I should think has gained very few followers.
[6] in vain To me, as I have already said, the opinion of Pearson is preferable; both because it is far more common, and because it is found to rest on stronger reasons. The first is taken from the comparison of the three places which Maran cited above. From these Pearson infers thus Annales Cyprianici p. 19. Bremen 1690.: The same formula of excuse used everywhere certainly indicates sufficiently the same occasion or reason of absence; so that he may not undeservedly seem to have written these three epistles at about the same time and under the same circumstances. Pearson explains in the same place the other reason for his opinion: Pamelius admits that it is clear from the words themselves that this epistle was written either in the withdrawal or in exile, and these (words), even considered in themselves, indicate rather a voluntary withdrawal than a forced and violent exile. When he was an exile at Curubis (from the month of September of the year 257), the sentence of the proconsul did not permit him to be present at Carthage; but in his withdrawal nothing except the condition of the place, that is, of Carthage, prevented him from being present there at that time. For wrongly does Pamelius interpret “the place” in those letters to the clergy as the withdrawal, of which he neither could nor ought to complain. Cyprian certainly understands the place in which he greatly desired to be present and to be among them and to enjoy the sight of them; but the condition of “the place”, that is, of Carthage, where the persecution was already raging, and of “rank”, that is, of the episcopate, which, if he himself were present, would provoke the ill will of the Gentiles more from day to day, did not permit it … He excuses himself plainly otherwise to the confessors placed in the mine, when he was in exile at Curubis, namely in epistle LXXVI (77 to Pamelius and Baluze): Your glory indeed, he says, most blessed and most beloved brethren, demanded that I myself should come to the sight of you and to your embrace, were it not that I too, relegated on account of the confession of the (Christian) name, were confined by the bounds of a prescribed place. Pearson adds: Thirdly the very narrative about the presbyter Rogatian, which they think opposes our opinion, agrees excellently with the beginning of this persecution: for the first onset of this disturbance came from the common people, at the time when they frequently demanded Cyprian himself with violent clamour Cf. Acta SS., vol. IV of September, day 14, p. 212 d.; and in the same way in this epistle Rogatian with Felicissimus is said “to have received the onset of the ferocious people.” Moved by these reasons I have thought that this epistle should be brought back from the last exile of Cyprian to the beginning of his withdrawal.
[7] Pamelius Then Pearson proceeds to wash away the foundations of the Pamelian opinion, of which the chief (I might say the only one) consists in the following words of Baronius At the year 260, number LX, vol. III, p. 89.: Cyprian … in mentioning Rogatian as having then suffered, plainly indicates that these letters were written [a] by him not in the time of a past persecution, but of the present one. For that Rogatian survived other persecutions is apparent clearly enough from other letters given at that time, as also Felicissimus. The learned Cardinal, then, and with him Pamelius, would have it wholly established from this epistle of the holy Doctor that SS. Rogatian and Felicissimus were crowned with martyrdom properly so called; and moreover that it is proved from other places of St. Cyprian that both lived on as survivors of the persecutions both under Decius and under Gallus. Pearson replies: That indeed about Felicissimus Baronius has added gratuitously, of whom nothing is read in the other letters of Cyprian. It is otherwise concerning Rogatian, who it is established from very many testimonies of the holy Doctor was among the living when the Decian storm had already been calmed at Carthage, as will become manifest from what is to be said below. If, then, as Baronius and Pamelius contend, it is really proved from epistle LXXXI that Rogatian was crowned with martyrdom, it follows that it was not written at the opening of the year 250, and accordingly that Pearson must be abandoned. But in my opinion the matter stands otherwise. Behold the words of the holy Doctor, from which the controversy both arose and must be decided Migne, vol. IV, col. 428.: Which faith (of the women and boys held in the same prison, whom he extols with the highest praises for their constancy in the preceding number) you also retaining … think only of things to come, that you may be able to attain to the fruit of the eternal kingdom and to the embrace and kiss and sight of the Lord; that you may follow in all things the presbyter Rogatian, the glorious old man, who makes a way for you to the glory of our time by religious virtue and divine condescension, who with our brother Felicissimus, always quiet and sober, receiving the onset of the ferocious people, first prepared a lodging for you in the prison, and being in a sort your quartermaster, now also goes before you. That this may be completed in you, we entreat the Lord with assiduous prayers that, the beginnings going on to the highest things, he may cause those to be crowned whom he has caused to confess. I admit that I find nothing in these things that even in the least persuades that St. Cyprian speaks in one way of Rogatian, in another of Felicissimus and the other confessors given over to custody in that place. He says that St. Rogatian together with St. Felicissimus were in a sort the quartermasters of the others. Now, on the testimony of Estienne, quartermasters in camps are those who go ahead and choose the place for the camp itself. Prisons, in which the confessors were disposing themselves for the supreme contest, are most aptly compared to camps. So that the likeness, used by Cyprian, a polished and accurate writer, openly favours our opinion. Du Cange in his Glossary renders this place less faithfully, where without doubt and without an asterisk he notes: Cyprian, Epist. 81, calls Rogatian the quartermaster of those whom he had preceded in martyrdom. Surely the word martyrdom, or another of the same meaning, nowhere occurs in that place. Whence Pearson Annal. Cyp., p. 19.: From which words no one can certainly gather that Felicissimus was then a martyr, whom Cyprian calls only brother, indicating that he was a layman, quiet indeed and sober, and nothing further. But if Felicissimus had then suffered martyrdom, he would never have named him without praise and a notable title. Indeed he does not indicate either that Rogatian himself was then a martyr or dead. For he says nothing else than that this Presbyter with the Brother first prepared a lodging for the other confessors, and so was in a sort their quartermaster; and that the same man, at the very time when he wrote, “makes a way for them to the glory of the time by religious virtue and divine condescension” and still “goes before” them. He clearly shows, then, that he was still alive and offering the best example to the other confessors, and accordingly he teaches that he is to be followed in all things.
[8] and Maran; Nevertheless Maran draws the aforecited words of St. Cyprian into an altogether opposite sense, and that with such confidence that he does not hesitate to pronounce: There is hardly a word in this place that does not indicate that Rogatian suffered for Christ Migne, vol. IV, col. 144.. But, with the leave of the learned writer be it said, what he brings forward in proof is very light. Cyprian, he says, calls him a “glorious old man,” which is a proof to him that he had attained to glory. As if the glory of confession and constancy in prison would not suffice for him to be so called by the holy Doctor. He praises the confessors, he says, because they think only of things to come, that they may attain to the Lord's embrace, that they may follow in all things Rogatian, whom they had already imitated in many things. Rogatian, then, had already attained to the sight of the Lord, if indeed to attain to the sight of the Lord is the same as to follow Rogatian in all things. Why should it not equally be the same to follow Rogatian making a way for them to glory by religious virtue? That is, Maran supposes what is in question, namely that Rogatian had already obtained the palm of victory. This being supposed, it is indeed necessary that they themselves should obtain the same, that they may truly be said to follow him in all things. Maran adds: Rogatian had prepared for them the first lodging in the prison. Where was he preparing the second, unless in heaven, going before them as a sort of quartermaster? There is no need of that second lodging for Rogatian to be held a quartermaster. Let what we said above be recalled. Finally (so Maran goes on) Cyprian prays God that that in which Rogatian went before them may be completed in them and that they may attain to the crown. Rogatian, then, had already attained to this crown. The consequence is denied. For it suffices that they should constantly proceed in confession with Rogatian, and so with him seize the heavenly palm. Moreover, to defend his positions, Maran asserts Migne, vol. IV, col. 145. that where Cyprian is said to be prevented by the condition of the place from being present with the confessors, the word place does not signify Carthage nor any other city or land, but episcopal authority, as that word is taken in some other instances. There is no need of many words to
refute the opinion of the learned Benedictine; since in an interpretation of this kind, so far as I have ascertained, he has had neither leader nor follower. It is, then, much more likely that SS. Rogatian and Felicissimus were living in prison together with the other confessors when Blessed Cyprian wrote this epistle. I gladly subscribe also to the opinion of Pearson, who thinks that this letter, of the two addressed to Rogatian, should be placed first: for thus what is reported of the holy Confessor coheres more aptly and better. They are cited in the same order in Morcelli Vol. II, pp. 102 and 110..
[9] a summary of this epistle, For the rest, since in this former epistle nothing is found, beyond what has already been said, that is not common to all who were imprisoned there for Christ, we shall add only its summary. First the holy man congratulates them on their glorious confession; then he exhorts them to go on nobly by the way in which they have begun, trampling on present punishments in the hope of future joys; then he extols with great praises the constancy of the women and boys: Blessed too, he exclaims, are the women, who are placed with you in the same glory of confession … And that nothing might be lacking to the glory of your number, that every sex and age might be in honour with you, the divine condescension has associated with you boys also in glorious confession, presenting to us something such as Ananias, Azarias, etc. Finally he puts an end with the words reported above: which faith you also retaining etc. It is to be noted that Surius, who on this 26th day of October cites SS. Rogatian and Felicissimus, recites this epistle of the holy Doctor in full; and he adds nothing else.
[10] likewise of the other In the other or later epistle, directed to Rogatian, which, as all grant, was written by the holy prelate of Carthage from his withdrawal, and is thirteenth to Pearson, seventh to Pamelius, sixth to Baluze, he exhorts Rogatian and the other confessors to observe discipline, lest those who had confessed Christ with the voice should seem to deny him by their works; in passing rebuking certain of them who, having been made exiles for the faith, yet did not fear to return to their homeland; and this is what Cyprian says below, Epist. XV (Pearson XXXVII), that rebuke was not lacking to the exiles when it was needed: for it is clear that this epistle was written in the withdrawal. So Baluze sets out the argument, but, as is his way, somewhat meagrely: for there Cyprian reprehends grave faults, indeed crimes, of some of the confessors: We have learned, he says, that there are not lacking those who stain the temples of God, and the members sanctified after confession and previously made illustrious, by their base and infamous cohabitation, joining their beds promiscuously with women, when, even if debauchery be absent from their conscience, this itself is a great crime, that by their scandal examples arise for the ruin of others. There ought also to be no contentions and rivalries among you, etc. And hence I have a new reason for placing this epistle after the other in the order of time. For such is the condition of human weakness that it perseveres with difficulty in what has been well begun; whence those who at the beginning had been united chastely and holily in glorious confession, not so long afterwards were turning aside from the heights to the depths. The corruptible body is a load upon the soul, and the earthly habitation presseth down the mind that museth upon many things *.
[11] whose final clause, added by Baluze, does not seem genuine. There is also another thing to be observed about this epistle. In Baluze a clause is added which is lacking in others, and from which it would follow that the confessors had already gone out of prison when Cyprian wrote these things to them. And although, he says, I wrote very fully to our clergy, both lately when you were still placed in prison, and now also once more, that if anything should be needed either for your clothing or for your food, it be supplied, yet I myself also from the small funds of my own which I carried with me have sent you 250, and I had lately sent another 250. Victor also, deacon from being a lector, who is with me, has sent you 175. And I rejoice when I learn that very many of our brethren, in their love, run together in rivalry and help your needs by their collections. But first, what precedes in the epistle is in its proper and obvious sense far more conveniently referred to confessors placed in prison; especially those things which Cyprian so gravely reprehends. But if you should call the aforesaid clause genuine, I do not know how the context of the epistle would cohere with itself; how the end would correspond to the beginning, unless force be applied to the words, so that they are twisted from their natural sense. Moreover it is certain that the clause is found only in one codex, of Reims. In the other codices which it has fallen to me to see, these words nowhere occur, as Fell expressly has it S. Cypriani opera. Epistolæ, p. 31. Bremen, 1690.. And Baluze himself gives warning Migne, vol. IV, col. 239.: Although Rigault, who first found this segment in the codex of St. Remigius, did not edit it with the epistle itself, but reported it among his observations; although the English (Fell) followed the example of Rigault; I have attached it to the epistle, not doubting but that it is of Cyprian, though it has been found in only one old book. Reinhart did not attach it to the epistle, but added it at the foot, noting that Rigault had edited it from the Reims codex. Certainly on the credit of one codex, no one will easily depart from the common opinion.
[12] What has been said is briefly recapitulated. And so, to comprehend in a few words what has been said so far, it seems to me that both epistles were written to our St. Rogatian; first in order is the one which is the later to Pamelius and Baluze; and it was sent in the month of March or April of the year 250; the other Cyprian gave in the following May, as Schoenemann reports from Pearson; and if this is so, it is more probable that the confessors were still in prison at that time; it would be otherwise in the opinion of Morcelli, who puts the epistle back to the beginning of the year 251. The clause adjoined by Baluze we have shown to be at least of doubtful credit. Further, from the former epistle we learn that SS. Rogatian the presbyter and Felicissimus were arrested at the beginning of the Decian persecution, about the end of the month of February 250, and thrown into chains on account of their splendid confession. To these a little later others were added, among whom were found also some women and some boys, whom Cyprian then congratulated by epistle, and whom he also urged to follow Rogatian and Felicissimus in all things Morcelli, Africa Christiana, vol. II, p. 102.. In the later epistle there is nothing that pertains specially to St. Rogatian (St. Felicissimus is mentioned only in the former, and nowhere else), except that it is inscribed with his name: Cyprian to the presbyter Rogatian, to the confessor brethren, greeting. Which surely, in the mind of the holy Doctor, is a sign not only of singular benevolence but also of no common esteem.
[13] St. Cyprian sends Rogatian money to be paid out for pious uses. That money was given and sent to St. Rogatian by Blessed Cyprian to be distributed for pious uses is clear from other letters (they begin: Cyprian to the presbyters and deacons, his dearest brethren, greeting), in which he recommends them to have care of widows, the sick and the poor, and not to neglect strangers: You may supply expenses, he says Migne, vol. IV, col. 327., from my own quantity which I left with Rogatian our fellow presbyter. And lest perhaps that quantity should already have been wholly paid out, I have sent to the same by Narcissus the acolyte another portion, so that the work among those labouring may be done more largely and promptly. This epistle seems to have been written at about the same time as the other two of which we have treated. But here, as holds in most other cases, the learned dispute. Some with Fell and Pearson place it eighth in order and refer it to the month of March or April of the year 250; and so it would come in the middle between the two sent to St. Rogatian in his own name; others with Pamelius and Baluze, in whom it is thirty-sixth in order, judge that it was written later; perhaps because the holy prelate signifies that the persecution had then cooled down; for he fears to return to Carthage, lest he be the author of breaking the peace; this, however, was not unimpaired, since he adds: When therefore you shall have written, matters being settled, that I ought to come …: then I shall come to you Ibid., p. 326.. But for the rest nothing seems to me to stand in the way of our saying that a mitigation or intermission of severity of this kind came about in the first period after Cyprian had withdrawn. Morcelli puts the epistle back to about the end of the year 250 Africa Christiana, vol. II, p. 109..
[14] He elsewhere splendidly commends the same man. We have again a splendid testimony concerning St. Rogatian in the 40th Epistle by Baluze's recension, 43rd of Fell. So, namely, Cyprian writes to the Whole People Migne, where cited above, col. 332.: Although, dearest brethren, Virtius, a most faithful and upright presbyter, likewise Rogatian and Numidicus, confessor presbyters and illustrious in the glory of divine condescension, and also the deacons, good men and devoted to ecclesiastical administration in every service, with the other ministers, offer you the full diligence of their presence, and do not cease to strengthen each one by assiduous exhortations, and also to rule and reform the minds of the lapsed by salutary counsels, yet I, as much as I can, admonish you, and as I can, visit you by my letters. By letters, I say, dearest brethren: for the malignity and perfidy of certain presbyters has brought this about, that it has not been permitted to come to you before the day of Easter, etc. From the last words it is understood that the epistle was written not long before the paschal feast (probably about the end of February, or the beginning of March See Schoenemann, vol. I, p. 86.), which, as Pearson notes Annales Cyprianici at the year 251 n. III., according to the canon of Hippolytus fell in this year of the Lord, Solar Cycle 8, Dominical letter E, on the twenty-third of March Compare Art de vérifier les dates, p. 6.. It is established moreover from the context that the epistle was given shortly after the excommunication of Felicissimus and his followers, of whom I shall treat in the next number. Nevertheless it may be presumed that what is here proclaimed of St. Rogatian looks not only to the circumstances of the present time, but to almost all that space during which St. Cyprian's withdrawal lasted. Wherefore in the compendium of his life (above, n. 2) we said: that St. Rogatian together with St. Numidicus and Virtius kept watch lest the flock should suffer graver injuries through the absence of the pastor.
[15] An epistle relating to the schism of Felicissimus; It remains to speak a little more fully of the deeds of St. Rogatian in the case of Felicissimus, by whose arts a schism had broken out in the church of Carthage. Pearson ascribes the beginning of the schism to the year 250; most, among them our predecessors in the Acts of St. Cyprian Vol. IV of September, p. 247., resting on a better foundation as it seems to us, to the opening of the following year Compare Tillemont, vol. IV, pp. 611 and 613.. Among the surviving epistles of St. Cyprian dealing with Felicissimus, there are three in which express mention is made of St. Rogatian, whom they show to have been appointed Vicar by the holy Doctor together with two bishops and another presbyter. From this it is surely clear how highly the blessed prelate of Carthage regarded Rogatian.
The epistles cited come in order 38th, 39th and 40th in Baluze; in the Oxford editors 40th, 41st and 42nd. The first is a reply to a letter lost to us, by which St. Cyprian was informed by his vicars of the outbreak of the schism of Felicissimus. It is addressed to Caldonius and Herculanus, colleagues, likewise to Rogatian and Numidicus, fellow presbyters; and St. Cyprian reminds them that they have been sent as Vicars in his place, with orders to declare Felicissimus and his more notable followers excommunicated, that is, deprived of communion.
[16] likewise a second and third; By the second we are taught that the orders contained in the previous letter were carried into execution. It will be of use to add it in full, being moreover very short: Caldonius with Herculanus and Victor, colleagues, likewise Rogatian with Numidicus, presbyters. We have excluded from communion Felicissimus and Augendus; likewise Repostus of the exiles and Irene of the Rutili and Paulus the seamstress; as you ought to have learned from my annotation. Likewise we have excluded Sophronius, and of the exiles himself, Soliassus the budinarius. It is to be noted first that to the two bishops named above there is added a third, namely Victor, whom Morcelli suspects to have presided over the nearest church, and to have been called in for that reason; secondly that in this letter not a few things are obscure and uncertain on account of variant readings. Thus we do not easily grasp what the pericope aims at: As you ought to have learned from my annotation; where others would put our in place of my; and for you ought (singular), Morel, Pamelius and Fell read in the plural number you ought: Fell also adds greeting in the title, a word lacking in others. Nor does the conjecture seem absurd to me that this writing has come down to us faulty, dislocated and indeed mutilated. It is no wonder, then, that the learned do not agree by whom, to whom or to which persons this epistle was sent, indeed whether it can properly be called an epistle. I, says Baluze Migne, vol. IV, col. 331., do not doubt that it is of Caldonius rendering to Cyprian an account of what had been done by him and the other Vicars, his colleagues, against Felicissimus and his associates. So the reading of the books that have “you ought” (singular) is the best: for Caldonius alone writes in his own name and that of his colleagues. Compare Tillemont Where cited above, p. 612, note XXII., who raises more than one difficulty against this opinion, and finally concludes that it is not an epistle, but rather a tablet or sentence of excommunication to be publicly posted; and he thinks so both for the reasons touched on above, and especially because it does not seem sufficiently fitting that vicars should write back to their bishop summarily and meagrely on a matter of such moment. To Morcelli Africa Christiana, vol. II, p. 111, n. IV. Brescia, 1817. it is an edict, which was to be sent to Cyprian and other bishops. Baluze cannot assent to Tillemont: for it is certainly, he says, an epistle of Caldonius; which certainly remains in question. There is no need to pursue this argument further: for it suffices for our purpose that it is established from this epistle or edict or tablet that St. Rogatian and the other vicars obeyed the order imposed by the former letter of the holy Doctor concerning the excommunication of Felicissimus and his followers. Whoever wishes more, let him go to the Acts of St. Cyprian Vol. IV of September, p. 250.. The third epistle is directed to the whole people, in which Cyprian announces that Felicissimus is to be avoided, with the five presbyters of his faction, who both gave peace to the lapsed without discrimination and stirred up sedition and schism against him. It begins with a splendid encomium of St. Rogatian and certain others, which we copied out above at n. 14.
[17] from which we learn that Rogatian was appointed vicar of St. Cyprian. These things having been explained, I add from Morcelli's work a brief narrative of the origin and progress of the schism, that it may be seen more clearly and as if in one view what was the part of St. Rogatian in that unhappy storm. While, says Morcelli Africa Christiana, p. 110, Cyprian was grieving at these conduct of the people, partly turning aside from the right path, a graver evil was already pressing from Felicissimus, a wealthy citizen of Carthage, and likewise a Christian, a layman (he is wrongly held by Baronius to be a presbyter [Tillemont, Mém. vol. IV, p. 611. Cf. the Acts of St. Cyprian p. 247 and following.]), but branded with vices, and of a mind hostile to Cyprian. Yet he does not seem to be added to those five presbyters who had opposed the election of St. Cyprian, although there are not lacking those who think so Ibid p. 56., among others Pearson and his abbreviator Schoenemann Vol. I, p. 85.. Perhaps at the opening of the year (251) Cyprian had sent to Carthage with money two bishops, Caldonius and Herculanus, and with these his most esteemed presbyters Rogatian and Numidicus, who were to “discharge the necessities of the brethren” at his expense, “and at the same time discern also their ages and conditions and merits,” so that he himself might be made more certain concerning them “and might be able to choose those worthy” and most commended by virtues for the use and solace of the church Migne, vol. IV, col. 329. Cyp. Epist. 38th; in Fell 41.. But now when they were diligently carrying out the orders they had received, behold, Felicissimus, surrounded by a band of wicked men, strove to restrain the bishops and presbyters, daring to intervene “so that no one could be discharged,” and that no census should be instituted; he threatened even those who had come to receive alms that “those who were willing to obey Cyprian would not communicate with him on the mount.” These things seem to have taken place in the territory of Carthage, and he is believed to have called “the Mount” his estate and house situated on a hill, which was then perhaps open to the Christians, as they gathered there the more safely because assemblies could not then be held in the city without danger. And this interpretation is much more common and more likely. Fell says, but does not prove, that it treats of a town named Mons, which he supposes to have been situated not far from Carthage. Others, very few in number, read in death Cf. Acta SS. vol. IV of September, p. 249.. Morcelli continues: Further, when Cyprian learned of these things, not deterred by the man's audacity … he did not suffer his authority to be despised with impunity and the peace of the church to be disturbed with crime unavenged; but he sent to the same bishops and presbyters whom he had ordered to act with vicarial power there most weighty letters (it is the 38th epistle in Baluze), by which letters he both interdicted Felicissimus from sacred things, and threatened that those who were his followers would be liable to the same penalty unless they deserted him … Nor indeed was any delay interposed. The bishops (Caldonius and Herculanus) met with the presbyters (St. Rogatian and Numidicus), Victor also being called in as colleague, who presided, as I judge, over the nearest church, and they set forth an edict of this sort, a copy of which was to be sent both to Cyprian and to other bishops. The edict or epistle is recited by us above at n. 16. Morcelli adds: Thus far the edict, such as it has come down to us. To which I should readily admit that more names were then subscribed. And when it had been promulgated, it immediately appeared what Felicissimus was working at: for five presbyters of Carthage, who had previously tried to snatch the pontificate from Cyprian, offered themselves to Felicissimus as the standard-bearers of that secession … By their votes, that they might seem to return the favour, Felicissimus was created deacon. Pearson Annales Cyprianici p. 25. and Schoenemann Bibliotheca historico litteraria vol. 1, p. 85. report that Felicissimus was raised to the diaconate by Novatus earlier, namely in the course of the year 250; and that, enhanced by this dignity, he began to turn the people away from Cyprian, and inaugurated his schism: but this is wrong, as Tillemont rightly points out Mémoires, vol. IV, p. 614.. Fourteen months having been passed in withdrawal, St. Cyprian returned to Carthage after the Easter of the year 251, which fell on the 23rd day of March. And when several bishops had come together to him, he held with them the first council of Carthage, in which by the common judgment of all Felicissimus and his followers were struck again with anathema.
[18] The Memorial in the sacred calendars, It remains for us to report what is contained in the sacred calendars concerning SS. Rogatian and Felicissimus. Let us note first that their names are passed over in the martyrology of the African church which Morcelli put together from the records of the ancients and brought to light at the foot of the second volume of his work, pointing out that his chief concern is that the names of those especially who once ennobled the African church with their blood … may be easily … recognized Africa Christiana, vol. II, p. 357.. Now the 26th and 27th days of October are blank. And Du Sollier observes on Usuard at this day: Rogatian and Felicissimus, passed over in the Hieronymian copies, in Bede, Florus, Rabanus, Wandelbert, are first recorded by the author of the Little Roman (which our Rosweyde published) in these words: “In Africa, of Rogatian the presbyter and Felicissimus the martyr. Ado of Vienne announces them more fully: In Africa the birthday of the holy martyrs Rogatian the presbyter and Felicissimus, who in the persecution of Decius and Valerian were crowned with illustrious martyrdom.” Of whom also blessed Cyprian writes in the epistle to the Confessors in these words: “That you may follow,” he says, “in all things the presbyter Rogatian, the glorious old man, who makes a way for you to glory, of our time, by religious virtue and divine condescension, who with our brother Felicissimus, always quiet and sober, receiving the onset of the ferocious people, first prepared a lodging for you in the prison, and being in a sort your quartermaster now also goes before you.” Usuard follows Ado to the letter, except that he does not add the words of St. Cyprian. So also Notker, but in different phrasing In Canisius, vol. III, p. 183.: In Africa of the holy martyrs Rogatian the presbyter and Felicissimus, who suffered under Decius and Valerian. In the Roman Decius is omitted and in his place Gallienus is put: In Africa of the holy martyrs Rogatian the presbyter and Felicissimus, who in the persecution of Valerian and Gallienus were crowned with illustrious martyrdom; of whom also St. Cyprian writes in the epistle to the Confessors. But Baronius notes on this place: Of these likewise Bede (this wrongly: for Bede is silent about our Saints), Usuard, Ado and others … There lived in the same times another Felicissimus of the same name, but most unhappy in his merits; who, the standard-bearer of the schismatic faction, was with his associates excommunicated by St. Cyprian … There was moreover another Rogatian, who suffered with Donatus in Gaul, of whom Gregory of Tours writes.
[19] where they are wrongly called Martyrs. In the martyrologies recorded so far SS. Rogatian and Felicissimus are expressly proclaimed martyrs, but whether they really are such, more than one reason for doubting presents itself. From epistle 81 of Cyprian, says Du Sollier, our martyrologists seem chiefly to have drawn what they proclaim of the “crown of illustrious martyrdom;” whether with sufficient certainty, I should not dare to assert: for if what Tillemont accurately observes is true, it is established indeed that Rogatian and Felicissimus suffered in the very first “onset of the ferocious people,” but that they laid down their life in torments, not so …, Chastelain on the contrary roundly testifies that he has found no foundation for this. From which
words it is sufficiently apparent to which opinion Du Sollier inclines. From what has been said in the course of this Commentary it is indeed established that SS. Rogatian and Felicissimus contended splendidly for the name of Christ; that they suffered hardships and prisons; but that they did not meet death. Nor are they therefore to be called martyrs in the proper sense, but rather confessors, as it was the custom at that time to call those who had vigorously confessed the faith in persecution, yet not even to slaughter: for that our holy Champions survived the Decian storm is all but certain to me: nor does any sufficiently suitable reason present itself to persuade us that they were violently carried off in some following whirlwind. But where and when they closed their day is altogether unknown. Wrongly, then, is the passion ascribed by the martyrologists reviewed above to the Decian or the Valerianic and Gallienic persecution. Nor have we any need to dispute whether they were crowned in one rather than in another; since it is very probable to us that, surviving the hardships and prisons bravely endured under Decius, they died afterwards in peace.
Annotata* Wisdom IX, 15.