Opening the library…
Home Bible Corpus Discover You
De Principiis
Origen of Alexandria
Book 2 · Chapter 5 About this work Origen’s systematic exploration of God, Christ, spiritual beings, creation, Scripture, freedom, and restoration, preserved largely through a Latin translation whose handling of the Greek original remains debated.
Author Origen of Alexandria
Date c. AD 220–230
Origin Alexandria
Genre Theological Treatise The title follows common modern usage; the surviving Latin translation complicates reconstruction of Origen’s exact wording.
Chapter V.—On Justice and Goodness. Section 1 1 . Now , since this consideration has weight
‹ Book 2 · Chapter 4 Book 2 · Chapter 6 ›with
some
,
that
the
leaders
of
that
heresy
(
of
which
we
have
been
speaking
)
think
they
have
established
a
kind
of
division
,
according
to
which
they
have
declared
that
justice
is
one
thing
and
goodness
another
,
and
have
applied
this
division
even
to
divine
things
,
maintaining
that
the
Father
of
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ
is
indeed
a
good
God
,
but
not
a
just
one
,
whereas
the
God
of
the
law
and
the
prophets
is
just
,
but
not
good
;
I
think
it
necessary
to
return
,
with
as
much
brevity
as
possible
,
an
answer
to
these
statements
.
These
persons
,
then
,
consider
goodness
to
be
some
such
affection
as
would
have
benefits
conferred
on
all
,
although
the
recipient
of
them
be
unworthy
and
undeserving
of
any
kindness
;
but
here
,
in
my
opinion
,
they
have
not
rightly
applied
their
definition
,
inasmuch
as
they
think
that
no
benefit
is
conferred
on
him
who
is
visited
with
any
suffering
or
calamity
.
Justice
,
on
the
other
hand
,
they
view
as
that
quality
which
rewards
every
one
according
to
his
deserts
.
But
here
,
again
,
they
do
not
rightly
interpret
the
meaning
of
their
own
definition
.
For
they
think
that
it
is
just
to
send
evils
upon
the
wicked
and
benefits
upon
the
good
;
i
.
e
.
,
so
that
,
according
to
their
view
,
the
just
God
does
not
appear
to
wish
well
to
the
bad
,
but
to
be
animated
by
a
kind
of
hatred
against
them
.
And
they
gather
together
instances
of
this
,
wherever
they
find
a
history
in
the
Scriptures
of
the
Old
Testament
,
relating
,
e
.
g
.
,
the
punishment
of
the
deluge
,
or
the
fate
of
those
who
are
described
as
perishing
in
it
,
or
the
,
destruction
of
Sodom
and
Gomorrah
by
a
shower
of
fire
and
brimstone
,
or
the
falling
of
all
the
people
in
the
wilderness
on
account
of
their
sins
,
so
that
none
of
those
who
had
left
Egypt
were
found
to
have
entered
the
promised
land
,
with
the
exception
of
Joshua
and
Caleb
.
Whereas
from
the
New
Testament
they
gather
together
words
of
compassion
and
piety
,
through
which
the
disciples
are
trained
by
the
Saviour
,
and
by
which
it
seems
to
be
declared
that
no
one
is
good
save
God
the
Father
only
;
and
by
this
means
they
have
ventured
to
style
the
Father
of
the
Saviour
Jesus
Christ
a
good
God
,
but
to
say
that
the
God
of
the
world
is
a
different
one
,
whom
they
are
pleased
to
term
just
,
but
not
also
good
.
Section 2 2 . Now I think they must , in the first place , be required to show , if they can , agreeably to their own definition , that the Creator is just in punishing according to their deserts , either those who perished at the time of the deluge , or the inhabitants of Sodom , or those who had quitted Egypt , seeing we sometimes behold committed crimes more wicked and detestable than those for which the above - mentioned persons were destroyed , while we do not yet see every sinner paying the penalty of his misdeeds . Will they say that He who at one time was just has been made good ? Or will they rather be of opinion that He is even now just , but is patiently enduring human offences , while that then He was not even just , inasmuch as He exterminated innocent and sucking children along with cruel and ungodly giants ? Now , such are their opinions , because they know not how to understand anything beyond the letter ; otherwise they would show how it is literal justice for sins to be visited upon the heads of children to the third and fourth generation , and on children’s children after them . By us , however , such things are not understood literally ; but , as Ezekiel taught when relating the parable , we inquire what is the inner meaning contained in the parable itself . Moreover , they ought to explain this also , how He is just , and rewards every one according to his merits , who punishes earthly - minded persons and the devil , seeing they have done nothing worthy of punishment . For they could not do any good if , according to them , they were of a wicked and ruined nature . For as they style Him a judge , He appears to be a judge not so much of actions as of natures ; and if a bad nature cannot do good , neither can a good nature do evil . Then , in the next place , if He whom they call good is good to all , He is undoubtedly good also to those who are destined to perish . And why does He not save them ? If He does not desire to do so , He will be no longer good ; if He does desire it , and cannot effect it , He will not be omnipotent . Why do they not rather hear the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospels , preparing fire for the devil and his angels ? And how shall that proceeding , as penal as it is sad , appear to be , according to their view , the work of the good God ? Even the Saviour Himself , the Son of the good God , protests in the Gospels , and declares that “ if signs and wonders had been done in Tyre and Sidon , they would have repented long ago , sitting in sackcloth and ashes . ” And when He had come near to those very cities , and had entered their territory , why , pray , does He avoid entering those cities , and exhibiting to them abundance of signs and wonders , if it were certain that they would have repented , after they had been performed , in sackcloth and ashes ? But as He does not do this , He undoubtedly abandons to destruction those whom the language of the Gospel shows not to have been of a wicked or ruined nature , inasmuch as it declares they were capable of repentance . Again , in a certain parable of the Gospel , where the king enters in to see the guests reclining at the banquet , he beheld a certain individual not clothed with wedding raiment , and said to him , “ Friend , how camest thou in hither , not having a wedding garment ? ” and then ordered his servants , “ Bind him hand and foot , and cast him into outer darkness ; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth . ” Let them tell us who is that king who entered in to see the guests , and finding one amongst them with unclean garments , commanded him to be bound by his servants , and thrust out into outer darkness . Is he the same whom they call just ? How then had he commanded good and bad alike to be invited , without directing their merits to be inquired into by his servants ? By such procedure would be indicated , not the character of a just God who rewards according to men’s deserts , as they assert , but of one who displays undiscriminating goodness towards all . Now , if this must necessarily be understood of the good God , i . e . , either of Christ or of the Father of Christ , what other objection can they bring against the justice of God’s judgment ? Nay , what else is there so unjust charged by them against the God of the law as to order him who had been invited by His servants , whom He had sent to call good and bad alike , to be bound hand and foot , and to be thrown into outer darkness , because he had on unclean garments ?
Section 3 3 . And now , what we have drawn from the authority of Scripture ought to be sufficient to refute the arguments of the heretics . It will not , however , appear improper if we discuss the matter with them shortly , on the grounds of reason itself . We ask them , then , if they know what is regarded among men as the ground of virtue and wickedness , and if it appears to follow that we can speak of virtues in God , or , as they think , in these two Gods . Let them give an answer also to the question , whether they consider goodness to be a virtue ; and as they will undoubtedly admit it to be so , what will they say of injustice ? They will never certainly , in my opinion , be so foolish as to deny that justice is a virtue . Accordingly , if virtue is a blessing , and justice is a virtue , then without doubt justice is goodness . But if they say that justice is not a blessing , it must either be an evil or an indifferent thing . Now I think it folly to return any answer to those who say that justice is an evil , for I shall have the appearance of replying either to senseless words , or to men out of their minds . How can that appear an evil which is able to reward the good with blessings , as they themselves also admit ? But if they say that it is a thing of indifference , it follows that since justice is so , sobriety also , and prudence , and all the other virtues , are things of indifference . And what answer shall we make to Paul , when he says , “ If there be any virtue , and , if there be any praise , think on these things , which ye have learned , and received , and heard , and seen in me ? ” Let them learn , therefore , by searching the holy Scriptures , what are the individual virtues , and not deceive themselves by saying that that God who rewards every one according to his merits , does , through hatred of evil , recompense the wicked with evil , and not because those who have sinned need to be treated with severer remedies , and because He applies to them those measures which , with the prospect of improvement , seem nevertheless , for the present , to produce a feeling of pain . They do not read what is written respecting the hope of those who were destroyed in the deluge ; of which hope Peter himself thus speaks in his first Epistle : “ That Christ , indeed , was put to death in the flesh , but quickened by the Spirit , by which He went and preached to the spirits who were kept in prison , who once were unbelievers , when they awaited the long - suffering of God in the days of Noah , when the ark was preparing , in which a few , i . e . , eight souls , were saved by water . Whereunto also baptism by a like figure now saves you . ” And with regard to Sodom and Gomorrah , let them tell us whether they believe the prophetic words to be those of the Creator God — of Him , viz . , who is related to have rained upon them a shower of fire and brimstone . What does Ezekiel the prophet say of them ? “ Sodom , ” he says , “ shall be restored to her former condition . ” But why , in afflicting those who are deserving of punishment , does He not afflict them for their good ? — who also says to Chaldea , “ Thou hast coals of fire , sit upon them ; they will be a help to thee . ” And of those also who fell in the desert , let them hear what is related in the seventy - eighth Psalm , which bears the superscription of Asaph ; for he says , “ When He slew them , then they sought Him . ” He does not say that some sought Him after others had been slain , but he says that the destruction of those who were killed was of such a nature that , when put to death , they sought God . By all which it is established , that the God of the law and the Gospels is one and the same , a just and good God , and that He confers benefits justly , and punishes with kindness ; since neither goodness without justice , nor justice without goodness , can display the ( real ) dignity of the divine nature .
We shall add the following remarks , to which we are driven by their subtleties . If justice is a different thing from goodness , then , since evil is the opposite of good , and injustice of justice , injustice will doubtless be something else than an evil ; and as , in your opinion , the just man is not good , so neither will the unjust man be wicked ; and again , as the good man is not just , so the wicked man also will not be unjust . But who does not see the absurdity , that to a good God one should be opposed that is evil ; while to a just God , whom they allege to be inferior to the good , no one should be opposed ! For there is none who can be called unjust , as there is a Satan who is called wicked . What , then , are we to do ? Let us give up the position which we defend , for they will not be able to maintain that a bad man is not also unjust , and an unjust man wicked . And if these qualities be indissolubly inherent in these opposites , viz . , injustice in wickedness , or wickedness in injustice , then unquestionably the good man will be inseparable from the just man , and the just from the good ; so that , as we speak of one and the same wickedness in malice and injustice , we may also hold the virtue of goodness and justice to be one and the same .
Section 4 4 . They again recall us , however , to the words of Scripture , by bringing forward that celebrated question of theirs , affirming that it is written , “ A bad tree cannot produce good fruits ; for a tree is known by its fruit . ” What , then , is their position ? What sort of tree the law is , is shown by its fruits , i . e . , by the language of its precepts . For if the law be found to be good , then undoubtedly He who gave it is believed to be a good God . But if it be just rather than good , then God also will be considered a just legislator . The Apostle Paul makes use of no circumlocution , when he says , “ The law is good ; and the commandment is holy , and just , and good . ” From which it is clear that Paul had not learned the language of those who separate justice from goodness , but had been instructed by that God , and illuminated by His Spirit , who is at the same time both holy , and good , and just ; and speaking by whose Spirit he declared that the commandment of the law was holy , and just , and good . And that he might show more clearly that goodness was in the commandment to a greater degree than justice and holiness , repeating his words , he used , instead of these three epithets , that of goodness alone , saying , “ Was then that which is good made death unto me ? God forbid . ” As he knew that goodness was the genus of the virtues , and that justice and holiness were species belonging to the genus , and having in the former verses named genus and species together , he fell back , when repeating his words , on the genus alone . But in those which follow he says , “ Sin wrought death in me by that which is good , ” where he sums up generically what he had beforehand explained specifically . And in this way also is to be understood the declaration , “ A good man , out of the good treasure of his heart , bringeth forth good things ; and an evil man , out of the evil treasure , bringeth forth evil things . ” For here also he assumed that there was a genus in good or evil , pointing out unquestionably that in a good man there were both justice , and temperance , and prudence , and piety , and everything that can be either called or understood to be good . In like manner also he said that a man was wicked who should without any doubt be unjust , and impure , and unholy , and everything which singly makes a bad man . For as no one considers a man to be wicked without these marks of wickedness ( nor indeed can he be so ) , so also it is certain that without these virtues no one will be deemed to be good . There still remains to them , however , that saying of the Lord in the Gospel , which they think is given them in a special manner as a shield , viz . , “ There is none good but one , God the Father . ” This word they declare is peculiar to the Father of Christ , who , however , is different from the God who is Creator of all things , to which Creator he gave no appellation of goodness . Let us see now if , in the Old Testament , the God of the prophets and the Creator and Legislator of the word is not called good . What are the expressions which occur in the Psalms ? “ How good is God to Israel , to the upright in heart ! ” and , “ Let Israel now say that He is good , that His mercy endureth for ever ; ” the language in the Lamentations of Jeremiah , “ The Lord is good to them that wait for Him , to the soul that seeketh Him . ” As therefore God is frequently called good in the Old Testament , so also the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is styled just in the Gospels . Finally , in the Gospel according to John , our Lord Himself , when praying to the Father , says , “ O just Father , the world hath not known Thee . ” And lest perhaps they should say that it was owing to His having assumed human flesh that He called the Creator of the world “ Father , ” and styled Him “ Just , ” they are excluded from such a refuge by the words that immediately follow , “ The world hath not known Thee . ” But , according to them , the world is ignorant of the good God alone . For the world unquestionably recognises its Creator , the Lord Himself saying that the world loveth what is its own . Clearly , then , He whom they consider to be the good God , is called just in the Gospels . Any one may at leisure gather together a greater number of proofs , consisting of those passages , where in the New Testament the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is called just , and in the Old also , where the Creator of heaven and earth is called good ; so that the heretics , being convicted by numerous testimonies , may perhaps some time be put to the blush .
