4. “Darkness was upon the face of the deep.”  8  Gen. i. 2. A new source for fables and most impious imaginations if one distorts the sense of these words at the will of one’s fancies. By “darkness” these wicked men do not understand what is meant in reality—air not illumined, the shadow produced by the interposition of a body, or finally a place for some reason deprived of light. For them “darkness” is an evil power, or rather the personification of evil, having his origin in himself in opposition to, and in perpetual struggle with, the goodness of God. If God is light, they say, without any doubt the power which struggles against Him must be darkness, “Darkness” not owing its existence to a foreign origin, but an evil existing by itself. “Darkness” is the enemy of souls, the primary cause of death, the adversary of virtue. The words of the Prophet, they say in their error, show that it exists and that it does not proceed from God. From this what perverse and impious dogmas have been imagined! What grievous wolves,  9  Acts xx. 29. tearing the flock of the Lord, have sprung from these words to cast themselves upon souls! Is it not from hence that have come forth Marcions and Valentini,  10  Marcion and Valentinus are roughly lumped together as types of gnostic dualism. On the distinction between their systems see Dr. Salmon in D.C.B. iii. 820. Marcion, said to have been the son of a bishop of Sinope, is the most Christian of the gnostics, and “tries to fit in his dualism with the Christian creed and with the scriptures.” But he expressly “asserted the existence of two Gods.” The Valentinian ideas and emanations travelled farther afield. and the detestable heresy of the Manicheans,  11  On Manicheism, videBeausobre’s Critical History of Manicheism, and Walch, Hist. Ketz. i. 770. With its theory of two principles it spread widely over the empire in the 4th c., was vigorous in Armenia in the 9th, and is said to have appeared in France in the 12th. (cf. Bayle, Dict. s.v.) On the view taken of the heresy in Basil’s time cf. Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius i. § 35. which you may without going far wrong call the putrid humour of the churches.

O man, why wander thus from the truth, and imagine for thyself that which will cause thy perdition? The word is simple and within the comprehension of all. “The earth was invisible.” Why? Because the “deep” was spread over its surface. What is “the deep”? A mass of water of extreme depth. But we know that we can see many bodies through clear and transparent water. How then was it that no part of the earth appeared through the water? Because the air which surrounded it was still without light and in darkness. The rays of the sun, penetrating the water, often allow us to see the pebbles which form the bed of the river, but in a dark night it is impossible for our glance to penetrate under the water. Thus, these words “the earth was invisible” are explained by those that follow; “the deep” covered it and itself was in darkness. Thus, the deep is not a multitude of hostile powers, as has been imagined;  12  i.e. by those who would identify the ἄβυσσος (Tehôm) of Gen. i. 2 with that of Luke i. 31, and understand it to mean the abode in prison of evil spirits. The Hebrew word occurs in Job xxviii. 14 and Deut. xxxiii. 13 for the depth of waters. nor “darkness” an evil sovereign force in enmity with good. In reality two rival principles of equal power, if engaged without ceasing in a war of mutual attacks, will end in self destruction. But if one should gain the mastery it would completely annihilate the conquered. Thus, to maintain the balance in the struggle between good and evil is to represent them as engaged in a war without end and in perpetual destruction, where the opponents are at the same time conquerors and conquered. If good is the stronger, what is there to prevent evil being completely annihilated? But if that be the case, the very utterance of which is impious, I ask myself how it is that they themselves are not filled with horror to think that they have imagined such abominable blasphemies.

It is equally impious to say that evil has its origin from God;  13  With this view Plutarch charges the Stoics. Αὐτοὶ τῶν κακῶν ἀρχὴν ἀγαθὸν ὄντα τὸν Θεον ποιοῦσι. (c. Stoicos, 1976.) But it is his deduction from their statements—not their own statements. cf. Mosheim’s note on Cudworth iv. § 13. Origen (c. Celsum vi.) distinguishes between την κακίαν καὶ τὰς ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς πράξεις, and κακόν as punitive and remedial; if the latter can rightly be called evil in any sense, God is the author of it. cf. Amos iii. 6. Vide, also, Basil’s treatment of this question in his Treatise ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν αἰτιος τῶν κακῶν ὁ θεος. cf. Schroeck. Kirchengeschichte xiii. 194. because the contrary cannot proceed from its contrary. Life does not engender death; darkness is not the origin of light; sickness is not the maker of health.  14  Fialon points out the correspondence with Plat. Phæd. § 119, καί τίς εἰπε τῶν παρόντων ἀκούσας…πρὸς Θεν, οὐκ ἐν τοῖς πρόσθεν ἡμῖν λόγοις αὐτὸ τὸ ἐναντίον τῶν νυνὶ λεγομένων ὡμολογεῖτο, ἐκ τοῦ ἐλάττονος τὸ μεῖζον γίγνεσθαι, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ μείζονος τὸ ἔλαττον, καὶ ἀτεχνῶς αὕτη εἶναι ἡ γένεσις τοῖς ἐναντίοις ἐκ τῶν ἐναντίων ; νῦν δέ μοι δοκεῖ λέγεσθαι ὅτι τοῦτο οὐκ ἄν ποτε γένοιτο. Καὶ ὁ Σωκράτης …ἔφη…οὐκ ἐννοεῖς τὸ διαφέρον τοῦ τι νῦν λεγομένου καί τοῦ τότε· τότε· μὲν γὰρ ἐλέγετο ἐκ τοῦ ἐναντίου πράγματος τὸ ἐναντίον πρᾶγμα γίγνεσθαι, νῦν δὲ ὅτι αὐτὸ τὸ ἐναντίον ἑαυτῷ ἐναντίον οὐκ ἄν ποτε γένοιτο, οὔτε τὸ ἐν ἡμῖν οὔτε τὸ ἐν φύσει· τότε μὲν γὰρ περὶ τῶν ἐχόντων τῶν ἐναντίων ἐλέγομεν, ἐπονομάζοντες αὐτὰ τῇ ἐκείνων ἐπωνυμί& 139·, νῦν δὲ περὶ ἐκείνων αὐτῶν ὧν ἐνόντων, ἔχει τὴν ἐπωνυμίαν τὰ ὀνομαζόμενα, αὐτὰ δ᾽ ἐκείνα οὐκ ἄν ποτέ φαμεν ἐθεγῆσαι γένεσιν ἀλλήλων δέξασθαι. In the changes of conditions there are transitions from one condition to the contrary; but in genesis each being proceeds from its like, and not from its contrary. If then evil is neither uncreate nor created by God, from whence comes its nature? Certainly that evil exists, no one living in the world will deny. What shall we say then? Evil is not a living animated essence; it is the condition of the soul opposed to virtue, developed in the careless on account of their falling away from good.  15  “Cette phrase est prise textuellement dans Denys l’Aréopagite, ou du moins dans l’ouvrage qui lui est attribué. (De Div. Nom. iv. 18. Laur. Lyd. de mensib. ed. Rœth. 186, 28.).” Fialon. In the Treatise referred to, περὶ Θείων ᾽Ονομάτων, “evil” is said to be “nothing real and positive, but a defect, a negation only. Στέρησις ἄρα ἐστὶ τὸ κακὸν, καὶ ἔλλειψις, και ἀσθένεια, καὶ ἀσυμμετρία.” D.C.B. i. 846. cf. “Evil is null, is nought, is silence implying sound.” Browning. Abt. Vogler.

Ἀλλὰ καὶ σκότος, φησὶν, ἐπάνω τῆς ἀβύσσου: Πάλιν ἄλλαι μύθων ἀφορμαὶ, καὶ πλασμάτων δυσσεβεστέρων ἀρχαὶ πρὸς τὰς ἰδίας ὑπονοίας παρατρεπόντων τὰ ῥήματα. Τὸ γὰρ σκότος οὐχ ὡς πέφυκεν ἐξηγοῦνται ἀέρα τινὰ ἀφώτιστον, ἢ τόπον ἐξ ἀντιφράξεως σώματος σκιαζόμενον, ἢ ὅλως καθ' ὁποιανοῦν αἰτίαν τόπον φωτὸς ἐστερημένον, ἀλλὰ δύναμιν κακὴν, μᾶλλον δὲ αὐτὸ τὸ κακὸν, παρ' ἑαυτοῦ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἔχον, ἀντικείμενον καὶ ἐναντίον τῇ ἀγαθότητι τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐξηγοῦνται τὸ σκότος. Εἰ γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς φῶς ἐστι, δηλονότι ἡ ἀντιστρατευομένη αὐτῷ δύναμις σκότος ἂν εἴη, φησὶ, κατὰ τὸ τῆς διανοίας ἀκόλουθον. Σκότος, οὐ παρ' ἑτέρου τὸ εἶναι ἔχον, ἀλλὰ κακὸν αὐτογέννητον. Σκότος, πολέμιον ψυχῶν, θανάτου ποιητικὸν, ἀρετῆς ἐναντίωσις: ὅπερ καὶ ὑφεστάναι, καὶ μὴ παρὰ Θεοῦ γεγενῆσθαι, ὑπ' αὐτῶν μηνύεσθαι τῶν τοῦ προφήτου λόγων ἐξαπατῶνται. Ἐκ δὴ τούτου τί οὐχὶ συνεπλάσθη τῶν πονηρῶν καὶ ἀθέων δογμάτων; Ποῖοι λύκοι βαρεῖς διασπῶντες τὸ ποίμνιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὐχὶ ἀπὸ τῆς μικρᾶς ταύτης φωνῆς τὴν ἀρχὴν λαβόντες ἐπεπόλασαν ταῖς ψυχαῖς; Οὐχὶ Μαρκιῶνες; οὐχὶ Οὐαλεντῖνοι ἐντεῦθεν; οὐχ ἡ βδελυκτὴ τῶν Μανιχαίων αἵρεσις, ἣν σηπεδόνα τις τῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν προσειπὼν οὐχ ἁμαρτήσεται τοῦ προσήκοντος; Τί μακρὰν ἀποτρέχεις τῆς ἀληθείας, ἄνθρωπε, ἀφορμὰς σεαυτῷ τῆς ἀπωλείας ἐπινοῶν; Ἁπλοῦς ὁ λόγος, καὶ πᾶσιν εὔληπτος. Ἀόρατος ἦν ἡ γῆ, φησί. Τίς ἡ αἰτία; Ἐπειδὴ ἄβυσσον εἶχεν ἐπιπολάζουσαν ἑαυτῇ. Ἀβύσσου δὲ ἔννοια τίς; Ὕδωρ πολὺ δυσέφικτον ἔχον ἑαυτοῦ τὸ πέρας ἐπὶ τὸ κάτω. Ἀλλ' ἔγνωμεν πολλὰ τῶν σωμάτων καὶ δι' ὕδατος λεπτοτέρου καὶ διαυγοῦς πολλάκις διαφαινόμενα. Πῶς οὖν οὐδὲν μέρος τῆς γῆς διὰ τῶν ὑδάτων ἐδείκνυτο; Ὅτι ἀλαμπὴς ἔτι καὶ ἐσκοτισμένος ἦν ὁ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ κεχυμένος ἀήρ. Ἀκτὶς μὲν γὰρ ἡλίου δι' ὑδάτων διικνουμένη, δείκνυσι πολλάκις τὰς ἐν τῷ βάθει ψηφῖδας: ἐν νυκτὶ δέ τις βαθείᾳ οὐδενὶ ἂν τρόπῳ τὰ ὑπὸ τὸ ὕδωρ κατίδοι. Ὥστε τοῦ ἀόρατον εἶναι τὴν γῆν κατασκευαστικόν ἐστι τὸ ἐπαγόμενον, ὅτι καὶ ἄβυσσος ἦν ἡ ἐπέχουσα, καὶ αὕτη ἐσκοτισμένη. Οὔτε οὖν ἄβυσσος, δυνάμεων πλῆθος ἀντικειμένων, ὥς τινες ἐφαντάσθησαν: οὔτε σκότος, ἀρχική τις καὶ πονηρὰ δύναμις ἀντεξαγομένη τῷ ἀγαθῷ. Δύο γὰρ ἐξισάζοντα ἀλλήλοις κατ' ἐναντίωσιν, φθαρτικὰ ἔσται πάντως τῆς ἀλλήλων συστάσεως: καὶ πράγματα ἕξει διηνεκῶς καὶ παρέξει ἀπαύστως πρὸς ἄλληλα συνεχόμενα τῷ πολέμῳ. Κἂν ὑπερβάλλῃ δυνάμει τῶν ἀντικειμένων τὸ ἕτερον, δαπανητικὸν ἐξάπαντος τοῦ κρατηθέντος γίνεται. Ὥστε εἰ μὲν ἰσόρροπον λέγουσι τοῦ κακοῦ τὴν πρὸς τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἐναντίωσιν, ἄπαυστον εἰσάγουσι πόλεμον καὶ διηνεκῆ τὴν φθορὰν, κρατούντων ἐν μέρει καὶ κρατουμένων. Εἰ δὲ ὑπερέχει δυνάμει τὸ ἀγαθὸν, τίς ἡ αἰτία τοῦ τὴν φύσιν τοῦ κακοῦ μὴ παντελῶς ἀνῃρῆσθαι; Εἰ δὲ, ὃ μὴ θέμις εἰπεῖν, θαυμάζω πῶς οὐχὶ φεύγουσιν αὐτοὶ ἑαυτοὺς πρὸς οὕτως ἀθεμίτους βλασφημίας ὑποφερόμενοι. Οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ παρὰ Θεοῦ τὸ κακὸν τὴν γένεσιν ἔχειν εὐσεβές ἐστι λέγειν, διὰ τὸ μηδὲν τῶν ἐναντίων παρὰ τοῦ ἐναντίου γίνεσθαι. Οὔτε γὰρ ἡ ζωὴ θάνατον γεννᾷ, οὔτε τὸ σκότος φωτός ἐστιν ἀρχὴ, οὔτε ἡ νόσος ὑγείας δημιουργὸς, ἀλλ' ἐν μὲν ταῖς μεταβολαῖς τῶν διαθέσεων ἐκ τῶν ἐναντίων πρὸς τὰ ἐναντία αἱ μεταστάσεις: ἐν δὲ ταῖς γενέσεσιν, οὐκ ἐκ τῶν ἐναντίων, ἀλλ' ἐκ τῶν ὁμογενῶν ἕκαστον τῶν γινομένων προέρχεται. Εἰ τοίνυν, φησὶ, μήτε ἀγέννητον, μήτε παρὰ Θεοῦ γεγονὸς, πόθεν ἔχει τὴν φύσιν; Τὸ γὰρ εἶναι τὰ κακὰ οὐδεὶς ἀντερεῖ τῶν μετεχόντων τοῦ βίου. Τί οὖν φαμέν; Ὅτι τὸ κακόν ἐστιν οὐχὶ οὐσία ζῶσα καὶ ἔμψυχος, ἀλλὰ διάθεσις ἐν ψυχῇ ἐναντίως ἔχουσα πρὸς ἀρετὴν, διὰ τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ καλοῦ ἀπόπτωσιν τοῖς ῥᾳθύμοις ἐγγινομένη.