flesh, these will furthermore distinguish what pertains to the human and what belongs to the godhead. Since these things are so, and Dionysius the bishop has been shown by his writings to be pious, what are the Ariomaniacs now to do? Whom will they further dare to accuse falsely, since they have been convicted of falsehood by the aforementioned? For it is necessary that they, having fallen from the foundation of the apostles and being possessed of a wavering mind, should seek a support, and finding none, should henceforth falsely accuse the Fathers. But no one will any longer put faith in them, even if they labor to spread slanders; for their heresy has been condemned by all: unless perhaps they choose henceforth to speak of the devil, for he alone agrees with them; nay rather, he himself is the one who suggested the heresy to them. Who then would henceforth call those whose leader is the devil Christians, and not rather diabolicals? So that they might be called not only enemies of Christ, but also diabolicals, unless perhaps they change their view, and deny the impiety they devised, and acknowledge the truth; for this would profit them, though it is fitting for us to pray thus for all who are led astray.
NOTICE ON THE EPISTLE TO DRACONTIUS
I. Dracontium, a monk and a leader of monks, having been appointed to the episcopacy of Hermopolis Parva, both that he might avoid the impending persecution, and because he feared to undertake so great an office, fled and hid himself. When this was brought to the attention of Athanasius, he strove to recall Dracontium to the office imposed upon him, and exhorted him to endure calamities for the sake of Christ and his flock. Then he brings forward the examples of Moses, Elijah, Elisha, and the apostles, who had not refused to undergo the most grievous trials for the people of God. He likewise lists monks who, having been promoted to the episcopacy, bore that burden with praise and to the benefit of the peoples. That Dracontium complied with these admonitions of Athanasius is evident. For at the beginning of the persecution stirred up by the Arian George, while he was bishop, he was forced into exile. And having stayed for some years in the place of his exile, called Clysma, finally, after the death of Constantius, when peace was granted to the Church, he took part in the synod of Alexandria. But these things belong elsewhere.
II. That this epistle was written when Constantius's final persecution was imminent, and the solemnity of Easter was approaching, is suggested by a great many points of the same passage. Wherefore it seems it should be referred to the year 354 or 355. For the time of this epistle cannot be delayed beyond the year 355; for at the beginning of the year 356, before Lent, that immense Arian persecution began to rage. Nor can it have been written before the year 354: since only toward the end of the year 353, long after Lent, did the Arians openly machinate their snares and conspiracies against Athanasius and the Catholics. Therefore, it seems it must be assigned to one or the other year, 354 or 355: to which of the two it pertains, is uncertain.