6.  Further, does a tree after it has been cut down blossom again, and shall man after being cut down blossom no more?  And does the corn sown and reaped remain for the threshing floor, and shall man when reaped from this world not remain for the threshing?  And do shoots of vine or other trees, when clean cut off and transplanted, come to life and bear fruit; and shall man, for whose sake all these exist, fall into the earth and not rise again?  Comparing efforts, which is greater, to mould from the beginning a statue which did not exist, or to recast in the same shape that which had fallen?  Is God then, who created us out of nothing, unable to raise again those who exist and are fallen Athenag. De Resurr. c. iii.:  “If, when they did not exist, He made at their first formation the bodies of men, and their original elements, He will, when they are dissolved, in whatever manner that may take place, raise them again with equal ease.”  Lactant. Institt. VII. 23 fin.:  Apost. Const. V. 7.?  But thou believest not what is written of the resurrection, being a Greek:  then from the analogy of nature consider these matters, and understand them from what is seen to this day.  Wheat, it may be, or some other kind of grain, is sown; and when the seed has fallen, it dies and rots, and is henceforth useless for food.  But that which has rotted, springs up in verdure; and though small when sown, springs up most beautiful.  Now wheat was made for us; for wheat and all seeds were created not for themselves, but for our use; are then the things which were made for us quickened when they die, and do we for whom they were made, not rise again after our death An eloquent statement of the argument for the resurrection from the analogies of nature occurs in Tertull. De Resurr. c. xii.  That it was not unknown to Cyril, seems probable from the concluding sentence:  “And surely if all things rise again for man, for whom they have been provided—but not for man unless for his flesh also—how can the flesh itself perish utterly, for the sake and service of which nothing is allowed to perish.”  Tertullian himself was probably indebted, as Bp. Lightfoot suggests, to Clemens. Rom. Epist. ad Corinth. xxiv.  Cf. Lactant. Div. Inst. vii. 4.?