To Pammachius against John of Jerusalem 20
20 PL 23, 371
20. One of your company, when pressed by me to say what he thought concerning the soul, whether it had existed before the flesh, or not, replied that soul and body had existed together. I knew the man was a heretic, and was seeking to entangle me in my speech. At last I caught him saying that the soul gained that name from the time when it began to animate a body, whereas it was formerly called a demon, or angel of Satan, or spirit of fornication, or, on the other hand, dominion, power, agent of the spirit, or messenger. Well, but if the soul existed before Adam was made in Paradise (in any rank and condition), and lived and acted (for we cannot think that what is incorporeal and eternal is dull and torpid like a dormouse), there must have been some precedent cause to account for the soul, which at first had no body, being afterwards invested with a body. And if it is natural to the soul to be without a body, it must be contrary to nature for it to be in a body. If it is contrary to nature to be in a body, it follows that the resurrection of the body is contrary to nature. But the resurrection will not be contrary to nature; therefore, according to you, the body, which is contrary to nature, when it rises again will be without a soul.
De quodam Origenista haec dicta. --Unus ex choro vestro cum a me teneretur, ut diceret quid sentiret de anima, fuissetne ante carnem, an non fuisset; fuisse respondit simul, et corpus et animam. Sciebam hominem haereticum laqueos in sermone quaerere. Tamdem reperi eum, ex quo corpus animasset, ex tunc eam dicere animam nuncupatam, quae prius vel daemon, vel Angelus Satanae, vel spiritus fornicationis, aut in parte contraria, dominatio, potestas, administrator spiritus, aut nuncius appellata sit. Si fuit anima antequam Adam in paradiso formaretur, in quolibet statu et ordine, et vixit, et egit [ Al. erat] aliquid (neque enim possumus incorporalem, et aeternam in modum glirium immobilem torpentemque sentire), necesse est ut aliqua causa praecesserit, cur quae prius sine corpore fuit, postea circumdata sit corpore. Et si 426 animae est naturale esse sine corpore, ergo contra naturam est esse in corpore. Si contra naturam est esse in corpore, ergo resurrectio corporis contra naturam erit. Sed non fiet resurrectio contra naturam; ergo juxta sententiam vestram corpus quod contra naturam est resurgens, animam non habebit.