PAMPHILUS, JUSTINIAN, AND

THE PREEXISTENCE OF SOULS

BY AMBROSE ANDREANO

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew

you; Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”

JEREMIAH 1:5

T hetypically
ancient conception of preexistence of souls, now
associated with Origen of Alexandria (AD
184 - 254), was that the soul is created prior to the
formation of the body. That is, the spiritual man descends
from God, existing in a spiritual form for some unknown
length of time, to eventually descend to the material
plane to fully incarnate as an enfleshed human being. The
soul descends from God, traversing realms to unite with
flesh, and then the animating process of meiosis begins.
Many know about how the Byzantine Emperor
Justinian I (AD 482 - 565) anathematized this idea when
they read summaries of the 5th Ecumenical Council. In
the first of Justinian’s nine anathemas (AD 543), his
decree on the matter is as follows:

If anyone says or holds that the souls of human

beings pre-exist, as previously minds and holy
powers, but that they reached satiety with divine
contemplation and turned to what is worse and for
this reason grew cold in the love of God and are
therefore called souls, and were made to descend

1
 into bodies as a punishment, let him be anathema.1

Then by AD 553, the first of fifteen anathemas says the

following:

If anyone advocates the mythical pre-existence of

souls and the monstrous restoration that follows
from this, let him be anathema.2

Justinian gives the following concluding remarks in his

own letter to the council:

But the church, following the divine scriptures,

affirms that the soul is created together with the
body, not first one and the other later, according to
the insanity of Origen. On account of these wicked
and destructive doctrines, or rather ravings, we bid
you most sacred ones to assemble together, read the
appended exposition attentively, and condemn and
anathematize each of these articles together with the
impious Origen and all those who hold or have held
these beliefs till death.3

However, few know about what Pamphilus of Caesarea

(2?? - 309) had to say about this subject when he
defended Origen on this very subject all the way back in
the late 3rd century. Justinian is very much at odds with
Pamphilus, and his actions have made history even more
complicated than it was prior to 553. Why? Because this
holy martyr Pamphilus was one of those very people to
“have held” the belief in the preexistence of souls,
rendering him guilty of being a heretic worthy of
condemnation, according to the logic of Justinian.

1
Richard Price, The Acts of the Council of Constantinople 553: With related
texts on the Three Chapters Controversy (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press,
2009), 281.
2
Ibid., 284.
3
Ibid.

2
 Saint Against Saint

Pamphilus and Justinian (both considered saints in the

Orthodox Church) contradict each other at a variety of
places. For example, concerning whether or not the stars
in the sky are to be considered rational beings, Pamphilus
says the following:

[C]oncerning the stars of heaven, those who are in

the Church each think differently—some indeed
hold the view that they are living beings and of the
class of rational living beings, but others think that
they are irrational, nay rather, that they not only
lack a soul and all sensibility but are mere bodies
without spirit and sensibility. Yet no one would
justly call someone a heretic who holds to one or
another of these diverse opinions. Therefore, since
there are no clear traditions in the apostolic
proclamation concerning these matters, it is also not
right to pronounce as heretics those who are in
doubt and hold different views concerning the
human soul and its origination and origin,
especially since in the remaining standards of
ecclesiastical doctrine they hold to what is correct
and catholic.4

A few hundred years later, Justinian has this to say about

the stars (considered a speculative theological opinion for
centuries prior):

If anyone shall say that the sun, the moon and the
stars are also reasonable beings [...] let him be
anathema.5

Therefore, according to Pamphilus, Justinian

anathematizing a particular theological opinion is unjust,
precisely because this is not something which concerns
apostolic tradition, nor is it a dogmatic matter of
orthodoxy and heresy. For Pamphilus, a diversity of
opinions is to be tolerated if we want to be just. This
4
Pamphilus, Apology for Origen (FOTC 120), trans. Thomas P. Scheck
(Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2010), p. 114.
5
Anathema 3 of 15.

3
makes Justinian’s actions all the more problematic.

On the Origin of Souls

In his Apology for Origen, Pamphilus set out to refute

nine objections against Origen from another saint,
Methodius of Olympus (AD 250 - 311), and preexistence
of souls was one of those topics. He opens by stating his
intentions explicitly, saying: “Now we will respond in
our own words to those objections they also raise
concerning Origen’s doctrine of the soul, namely, that he
says that the soul was made to exist before the body.”6
However, contrary to what one might expect, Pamphilus
does not set out to show that Origen does not believe this
teaching (ie: arguing that it is a misinterpretation or
foreign interpolation), but rather shows how believing in
or rejecting the preexistence of souls does not qualify as
something on the table to justly condemn, since neither
the scriptures nor the apostles handed down a dogma
regarding the soul.
Not only this, but even more surprising is that
Pamphilus argues the preexistence of souls is the most
reasonable position on the matter:

If the Church manifestly handed down or

proclaimed things that were contrary to Origen’s
views, doubtless he would be deservedly censured
as one who contradicted and resisted the Church’s
decrees. But now, since there is diversity of opinion
among all the men of the Church, and seeing that
some hold one thing about the soul and others hold
something else, and everyone holds different
opinions, how is it that Origen should be accused
rather than the others, especially since the things
that are asserted by the others seem much more
absurd, and these things are themselves
contradictory?7

6
Pamphilus, Apology for Origen (FOTC 120), trans. Thomas P. Scheck
(Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2010), p. 109.
7
Ibid., 111.

4
And elsewhere, Pamphilus emphasizes the injustice of
condemning someone over this:

[J]ust as one would be wrong to call heretics those

who hold as true either one of these opinions that
we have set forth above, because nothing of
certainty seems to have been manifestly spoken in
the divine Scriptures about these matters, nor is it
contained in the Church’s proclamation, so it is
unjust to blame Origen when he discusses what
seemed right to him concerning these matters. This
is especially the case when we consider that in
every way he preserved what chiefly had to be
preserved in the Church concerning the confession
of the soul[...]8

Pamphilus is so eerily specific here that it is as if he is

arguing against Justinian. Pamphilus explicitly states that
it is unjust to condemn Origen about these matters
because Origen already “preserved” that which is
essential concerning them. In other words, Origen was
not changing what has been handed down, he was
speculating about things not handed down and open for
discussion.

The Logic of Pamphilus

Why did Pamphilus believe the preexistence of souls was

the most rational position? It is largely because he
thought all the other opinions had more problems. As you
read his responses, take note of what he is trying to
preserve: it is (a) the justice of God, (b) the
creator/creature distinction, (c) the immortality of the
soul. I will detail the views besides preexistence that
were circulating in his day, and then I will quote him
responding to each one:

Option A: Souls are created after the bodies have already

8
Ibid., 113-114.

5
been formed in the womb.9 To this, Pamphilus argues that
not only can this not be argued from scripture, but it
makes God appear to be unjust for His apparent
impartiality concerning where souls end up once they
incarnate:

[T]hose who hold these opinions are unable to go

on and exhibit clear proofs from the Holy
Scriptures. Moreover, in a certain respect they are
accusing the Creator of injustice, because he does
not bestow on everyone equally, that is, he does not
give equal courses of life to all. For immediately
when a soul has been created, when it has as yet
committed absolutely no wrong within itself, it is
inserted, as it so happens, sometimes into the body
of a blind man, at other times into a debilitated
body, at other times into healthy and stronger
bodies. And to some souls a long life is granted, but
to others a very brief life, so that sometimes, as
soon as the souls are born, they are expelled from
the body. And some souls are even directed to a
kind of savage and barbaric manner of life, where
nothing humane and decent exists, and, beyond all
that, where irreligious native superstitions
predominate. Yet other souls are directed to decent
men who are sober and humane, where the
observance of human laws obtains. Sometimes they
are even directed to religious parents, where they
receive a noble and honest upbringing, and where
they likewise receive an education that is founded
on reason. How then can those who defend such
opinions assign to divine Providence rectitude and
impartiality in dispensing and governing all things,
as befits a good and just God?10

Option B: Souls are of one substance with God, and the

direct in-breathing of the Spirit of God sown immediately
together with the bodily seed.11 To this theory, Pamphilus
responds by saying:

Indeed, some of these are accustomed to claim that

9
Ibid., 111-112.
10
Ibid., 112.
11
Ibid., 112.

6
 the soul is nothing but the in-breathing of the Spirit
of God, namely, that which at the beginning of the
creation of the world God is said to have breathed
into Adam. Essentially they are professing that the
soul is from the same substance of God. If this is
true, how will these persons as well not seem in
some way to be making assertions that go beyond
the rule of Scripture and the definitions of religion?
For if the soul is from the substance of God, then
the substance of God sins when the soul sins.
Moreover, the substance of God would have to be
handed over to punishments because of sin.
Furthermore, this theory runs into the problem– and
this is extremely absurd—of failing to see that
according to this view the soul necessarily dies
together with the body and is mortal, if indeed it has
been sown, formed, and born together with the
body.12

Option C: It seems to me that this option is perhaps a

preexistence version of the former. Souls preexist in
Adam, and then from Adam the souls are naturally
created through sexual reproduction, essentially meant to
imply the souls of the human race were somehow already
contained in and propagated by Adam’s sperm. Both
Option B and Option C seem to be related to the
traducian theory of souls (held by Tertullian),13 believing
that the soul is not directly created by God, but is (like
the body) somehow inherited from the parents. To this,
Pamphilus responds with the following (again
emphasizing the absurdity in suggesting that souls are
mortal):

What else are these people as well teaching except

that souls are mortal? For if they come to exist
solely from the seed, like the rest of the living
creatures, then we should think the same thing of
men, that is, that together with the body the soul too
is diffused in the same seed. What, then, do we say
about those who are still imperfectly formed and are
aborted from the womb? What do we say about the

12
Ibid., 112-113.
13
Tertullian, De Anima, 27.

7
 fact that sometimes the seeds perish even before
they have been received into the receptacles of
natural vessels? In such cases doubtless it will be
found that those souls as well that had been inserted
into the seeds by a natural method were at the same
time equally extinguished and destroyed.14

Therefore, Pamphilus is primarily concerned with

holding fast to the aforementioned principles that are
authoritative and must be affirmed regardless of whatever
one chooses to believe about the origin of the soul: (1)
God is just, so our position cannot make Him appear
unjust, (2) God is creator, and cannot be reduced to the
status of a creature, (3) Rational souls are immortal.
Pamphilus also has a presumption that what we say
about the soul can add to but must not, at the very least,
contradict scripture. And even though Pamphilus does
not agree with any of these other positions, he also does
not believe it is just to condemn anyone for holding what
is disagreeable to him because it is not spoken of in the
scriptures nor handed down via apostolic tradition.

Justinian’s Injustice

How did Pamphilus escape Justinian’s warpath against

those who believed in the preexistence of souls? Why is
canonization and anathema so incredibly inconsistent
with seemingly no immutable standard for either?
Why canonize Pamphilus and condemn Origen
when they are thought to have both believed the same
“heresy?” (The same can be said about Gregory of Nyssa
and Isaac the Syrian concerning Origenian universalism).
If Origen is condemned precisely because of these things,
then one must condemn the others as well if one is to be
consistent. Remember, Justinian did not say anyone who
currently holds the belief in his own generation (6th
century), but “all those who hold or have held these
beliefs till death,” which is a retroactive anathematizing
14
Pamphilus, Ibid., 113.

8
that should have also swept Pamphilus into this wroth
flood of injustice (as Pamphilus would describe it).

There are a few possibilities that I can tell:

1. Justinian was ignorant of Pamphilus and

would have condemned the martyr-saint too,
had he read him,
2. Justinian was ignorant of Pamphilus and
would not have thought preexistence was a
heresy had he read him, because Pamphilus
already stated that it was not even in the
framework of “orthodoxy” and “heresy.”
3. Justinian was ignorant of Pamphilus and
mistakenly conflated preexistence of souls
with reincarnation (as most people did in his
era), and condemned preexistence of souls
on the basis of entirely unrelated
conceptions of what it asserts (which would
mean it is actually reincarnation that is
condemned, and not the preexistence of
souls).
4. Justinian was aware of Pamphilus, and for
some reason intentionally went against the
saint in order to condemn Origen, creating
his own innovation as to what constitutes
“heresy” and what does not.

“Heretics” As Defined By Origen

It is very interesting to note that Pamphilus records

Origen (from his now lost Commentary on Titus as well
as other works) defining what it means to be a heretic
(and obviously agrees with him). According to Origen,
the marks of a heretic are those who subvert the apostolic
teachings of the faith and “suffer from the disease of
philarchia [having the lust for power].”15 I will give

15
Ibid., 57.

9
twenty examples of heresies according to Origen that can
be found in Pamphilus’ Apology.

Origen says heretics are...

1. Those who professes to believe in Christ, but say “there is

one God of the law and the prophets, and another God of
the Gospels.”16
2. Those who says that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is
not he who is proclaimed by the law and the prophets, but
is some other, whom no one knows and no one has heard
of.”17 (Origen lists as examples for these two: Marcion,
Valentinus, Basilides, the Sethians, and Apelles).18
3. Those who believe in accordance with the Ebionites and
Valentinians that Christ was not a divine person from
heaven truly born from a virgin, but a mere man born from
the natural union of Joseph and Mary.19
4. Those who deny that Jesus Christ is the “firstborn,” the
God “of all creation” and “the Word” and “the Wisdom,”
which is “the beginning of the ways of God,” which “came
into being before anything else,” “founded before the ages”
and “generated before all the hills.”20 and instead say he
was a mere man.
5. Those who say Christ is God but did not truly assume
humanity: both body and soul, and rather say that Christ
only seemed to have been a man.21
6. Those who “do not acknowledge that he was born of a
virgin, but say he appeared in Judea as a thirty-year-old
man,” or say that “he was indeed brought forth from a
virgin, but claim that the virgin only imagined that she had
given him birth, when in fact she had not truly given him
birth.”22
7. Those who assert that Christ was the human incarnation of
the Father, or those who say the Father and the Son are one
person/hypostasis that manifests in different modes
(Sabellianism/Modalism/Patripassianism).23
8. Those who say the Holy Spirit in the prophets is different

16
Ibid., 55.
17
Ibid.
18
Ibid., 56.
19
Ibid.
20
Ibid., 56-57.
21
Ibid., 57.
22
Ibid.
23
Ibid., 58.

10
 than that of the apostles.24
9. Those who deny the human soul is of one substance and
say that there are different natures of soul (and this is what
makes people good or bad), which accuses God of injustice
and inequity.25
10. Those who take away free will with determinism, saying
that “nothing good can be attributed to human intentions,
whether action, speech, or thought.” Because this doctrine
leads to the formation of a human mind that “despises and
neglects the divine judgment.”26
11. Those who deny the assurance regarding “the punishments
that are due to sinners at God’s just judgment, and in regard
to those who will receive rewards for their good conduct
and life in the Lord’s kingdom.”27
12. Those who deny the bodily resurrection of the dead,
subsequently denying the bodily resurrection of Christ.28
13. Those who deny that “no man is handed over to destruction
by God, but each of those who perish perishes by his own
fault and negligence. Since each has the freedom of choice,
each was both able and obligated to choose what is
good.”29
14. Those who deny that “We must likewise hold this view of
the devil himself, who is recorded to have offered
resistance in the presence of the Lord Almighty and to have
abandoned his proper position, in which he had been
without stain, he who assuredly could have “persevered to
the end” in that position in which he had been from the
beginning, if he had wanted.”30
15. Those who deny that the Father is incorporeal and without
body, being immeasurably simple, having nothing lesser or
greater within Himself.31
16. Those who deny that Christ is that Wisdom who is head of
all creation, both of the celestial archons above and of
mankind below, and who alone has the Father as head, and
who mediates between the Father and all other things.32
17. Those who deny that God did not begin to be the Father at
some point in time, as though He was not Father

24
Ibid.
25
Ibid.
26
Ibid., 59.
27
Ibid.
28
Ibid.
29
Ibid.
30
Ibid., 59-60.
31
Ibid., 62.
32
Ibid., 65.

11
 previously: denying that the Son is co-eternal with the
Father.33
18. Those who say that there are two Gods or two Christs.34
19. Those who deny the uncreated and divine nature of the
Holy Spirit.35
20. Those who deny that the Son is of one essence with the
Father.36

Navigating the Ark of Salvation

It is important to note that there is a rule of faith

regarding these things. There is a specific rationale which
determines what is or is not “heretical,” and it is
fundamentally reduced to three main features: (1)
apostolic tradition, (2) sound logic, and (3) a scriptural
exegesis that is careful not to make claims that give the
wrong impression of what we already believe about the
moral nature of God as revealed in Christ (whether it be
His love, goodness, justice and so on). Heresy has been
historically defined as whatever contradicts these three
immutable principles.
Now that we have seen saint contradict saint even
at the levels of what is and is not just, it is up to the
church to decide where to navigate the ship of orthodoxy
from here. Justinian claimed to be “following the divine
scriptures” with his condemnation, and yet Pamphilus
already said hundreds of years prior that this is not even
something given to us in the scriptures. Pamphilus is just
another example exposing the great scandal that we have
murdered our own grandfather Origen. We have, in an
unjust moment of insanity, cut off our right hand. This is
our great blemish, one that will never go away until we
admit our mistake, correct it, and move on with our
“right hand” reattached.37 We are the Church. Right now
in 2020. I am of the opinion that the operations of the
33
Ibid., 66.
34
Ibid., 70.
35
Ibid., 72,
36
Ibid., 85.
37
cf. Origen’s Homily 7 on Joshua.

12
Orthodox Church must not transform itself to a kind of
tradition that is, as Sergei Bulgakov rightly critiqued,
“dead archaeology, or into an exterior law,” transforming
itself “into the letter that kills.”38 This is the kind of dead
traditionalism for which Christ said makes “the word of
God of none effect through your tradition.”39
We are the ones who need to navigate the ark of
the church and make the decisions for our era with the
knowledge that our forefathers did not necessarily have,
being faithful stewards of this knowledge (and its
advancement due to modern technologies such as the
internet). We have the power to correct the mistakes of
the past. We must not choose to delude ourselves into
thinking we as a church cannot ever make mistakes. I
pray that we as the church body can take hold of the
unmanned rudder of status quo and steer ourselves into a
future that is far more charitable than our past.

38
Sergei Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church (SVS Press, 1988) p. 33.
39
Mark 7:13.

13