“Very many persons, especially those who come from the school of Marcion and Valentinus and Basilides, object to us that it is inconsistent with the justice of God in making the world to assign to some creatures an abode in the heavens, and not merely a better abode, but also a loftier and more honourable position; to grant to some principality, to others powers, to others dominations; to confer upon some the noblest seats of the heavenly tribunals, to cause others to shine out with brighter rays, and to flash forth the brilliance of a star; to give to some the glory of the sun, and to others the glory of the moon, and to others the glory of the stars; to make one star differ from another star in glory.... In the second place, they object to us about terrestrial beings that a happier lot of birth has come to some men than to others; one man, for example, is begotten by Abraham and born according to promise; another is the son of Isaac and Rebekah, and, supplanting his brother even in the womb, is said even before he is born to be beloved of God. One man is born among the Hebrews, among whom he finds the learning of the divine law; another among the Greeks, themselves also wise and men of no small learning; another among the Ethiopians, who are cannibals; another among the Scythians, with whom parricide is legal; another among the Taurians, who offer their guests in sacrifice. “They consequently argue thus: If this great diversity of circumstances, this varied and different condition of birth—a matter in which free-will has no place—is not caused by a diversity in the nature of the souls themselves, a soul of an evil nature being destined for an evil nation, and a soul of a good nature for a good one, what other conclusion can be drawn than that all this is the result of chance and accident? And if that conclusion be admitted, it will no longer be credible either that the world was made by God or that it is governed by His providence: and consequently neither will the judgment of God upon every man’s doings seem a thing to be looked for.”[437] It is to this phase of the controversy that the ethical theology of Origen is relative. In that theology, Stoicism and Neo-Platonism are blended into a complete theodicy: nor has a more logical superstructure ever been reared on the basis of philosophical theism. It is necessary to show the coherence of his view as a whole, and it is advisable, in doing so, to use chiefly his own words:[438]