The Judgment of the Fathers
here of the universal resurrection of all men, seeing those bones made alive are said to be the house of Israel. Secondly, that this was a feigned and imagined vision; and therefore, that nothing can be constantly affirmed thereby. Hereunto we answer, that indeed we confess, that the prophet speaks of the resurrection of the just, as we have already said before: but in that it was a vision, it makes no matter; neither does it make anything the less, but that this vision was a general consolation, for confirming the hope of the general resurrection, as well as the restitution of the Jews. For it is sufficient that the argument is taken and derived from the resurrection of the dead. Also, the Hebrew interpreters do not deny, but that the same is to be proved out of this place. Neither is that of any force, which some cavil; namely, that the argument from the greater to the less, is nothing worth, if so be that which is taken as the greater, be more uncertain, or as doubtful as that which is inferred for the less. These men think that the resurrection of the dead is more uncertain or as doubtful as the restoring of the Jews into their native land. But they are far deceived; because the resurrection of the dead is accounted as better known, especially to the faithful Jews, unto whom it was certain and evident; not by nature or sense, but by faith, through whose light those things become manifest and firm unto our minds, which unto the sense and reason of man be obscure. And that this it was that doth prove, that the Hebrews, which seek occasions against the Christians, never contended with them concerning the resurrection of the dead: because it was always received by them and by their forefathers. Whereupon Martha, when Christ had promised her, that her brother should be raised up, answered boldly; "I know that my brother shall rise again at the last day."
The Judgment of the Fathers
45. But for the better explication of this cavil, I think it good to rehearse what the fathers have judged thereof. Tertullian, in his book
De resurrection carnis, objects the very same against himself: and he answers; that unless a thing first be, the same cannot be resembled unto another thing by a similitude. And therefore, unless the resurrection be known by faith, and that it shall come to pass in very deed, it cannot (says he) be applied to the restitution of the Jews. A similitude he says of a void thing is not meet: and a parable of nothing is not convenient. And certainly, they that will, that the resurrection of the dead is inserted in this place metaphorically, must consider, that such is the nature of a metaphor, that the thing should be translated from his own proper place unto another. So as of necessity a thing must first be, before it suffer a metaphor: for unless that laughter and gladness were in man, he might not apply them to the corn fields and meadows. Nay rather, those metaphors are chiefly commended, which be derived from notable things, and from things that be nearest, and most known. The very which thing comes to pass in parables. Christ brought a similitude of the vine, which after it was well dressed, and in excellent order, it was let forth unto ill husbandmen. This parable had not been plain, neither would it have been of force, unless that vines excellently well handled, should be found in the nature of things; & unless that the owners of farms should ofttimes happen upon ill husbandmen. Likewise he brought in a parable of a barren & unfruitful fig tree, the which for a year or two was dressed with compass; and seeing it brought forth no fruit, it was at the length cut down. This parable also had been brought in vain, unless that compassing of the fig tree, and pruning in husbandry or gardening, should not everywhere appear. Nor let any object unto me the monster Chimaera, and such like monsters; which albeit they are not in the nature of things, yet wise men do frame the like shaped things. For albeit Chimaera itself be not extant,