The Limitations Of Miracles

Non fuit, inquis, ordo eiusmodi necessarius, quia statim se et Filium et Missum et Dei Christum rebus ipsis esset probaturus per documenta virtutum. At ego negabo solam hanc illi speciem ad testimonium competisse, quam et ipse postmodum exauctoravit, siquidem edicens multos venturos et signa facturos et virtutes magnas edituros, aversionem etiam electorum, nec ideo tamen admittendos, temerariam signorum et virtutum fidem ostendit, ut etiam apud pseudochristos facillimarum. Aut quale est si inde se voluit probari et intellegi et recipi, ex virtutibus dico, unde ceteros noluit aeque et ipsos tam subito venturos quam a nullo auctore praedicatos? Si quia prior eis venit et prior virtutum documenta signavit, idcirco, quasi locum in balneis, ita fidem occupavit, posteris quibusque praeripuit, vide ne et ipse in condicione posteriorum deprehendatur, posterior inventus creatore ante iam cognito, et proinde virtutes ante operato, et non aliter praefato non esse aliis credendum, post eum scilicet. Igitur si priorem venisse et priorem de posteris pronuntiasse hoc fidem excludet, praedamnatus erit et ipse iam ab eo quo posterior est agnitus, et solius erit auctoritas creatoris hoc in posteros constituendi, qui nullo posterior esse potuit. Iam nunc, cum probaturus sim creatorem easdem virtutes, quas solas ad fidem Christo tuo vindicas, interdum per famulos suos retro edidisse, interdum per Christum suum edendas destinasse, possum et ex hoc merito praescribere tanto magis Christum non ex solis virtutibus credendum fuisse quanto illum non alterius quam creatoris interpretari potuissent, ut respondentes virtutibus creatoris et editis per famulos suos et in Christum suum repromissis. Quamquam, et si alia documenta invenirentur in tuo Christo, nova scilicet, facilius crederemus etiam nova eiusdem esse cuius et vetera, quam cuius tantummodo nova, egentia experimentis fidei victricis vetustatis, ut sic quoque praedicatus venire debuerit tam praedicationibus propriis exstruentibus ei fidem quam et virtutibus, praesertim adversus Christum creatoris venturum et signis et prophetiis propriis munitum, ut aemulus Christi per omnes diversitatum species reluceret. Sed quomodo a deo nunquam praedicato Christus eius praedicaretur? Hoc est ergo quod exigit nec Deum nec Christum tuum credi, quia et Deus ignotus esse non debuit, et Christus agnosci per Deum debuit. Tertullianus, Adversus Marcionem, Liber III, Caput III Source: Migne PL 2.323c-325a

An arrangement of prior prophecy, you say, was not necessary, because He was instantly able to prove Himself the Son, and He Who Was Sent, and the Christ of God, with His deeds, by means of the witness of His miracles. But I shall deny that evidence of this sort alone was sufficient testimony of Him when He Himself later dismissed its authority, since He, declaring that many would come and show great signs and wonders, so as to turn aside the very elect, and yet were not to be received, 1 showed the rashness of belief in signs and wonders, which were so easy to perform even by false christs. Else how is it, if He wished to be approved and understood and received on account of such wonders, that He forbade the recognition of others like that, whose coming was to be quite sudden and unannounced by any authority? If, because He came before them, and was before them in displaying signs, and therefore, just as the firstcomers have the first place in the baths, He had first right to faith, and so seized it from all who came after, be careful lest even He be caught in the condition of the latecomer, being found to be after the Creator, who had already been made known, and who had already worked miracles like Him, and just like Him had forewarned that others not be believed, who should come after Him. If, therefore, to have come first and to have first uttered this warning is the limit of faith, He will Himself have to be condemned, because He was later in being acknowledged, and authority to prescribe such a rule about latecomers will belong to the Creator alone, who could have been after none. And now, when I am about to prove that the Creator displayed the same miracles, which you claim as solely enough for faith in your Christ, sometimes by His servants before, and in other cases reserved for His Christ to show, I may from this with merit maintain that there was so much the greater reason why Christ should not be believed in simply on account of His miracles, inasmuch as these would have shown Him to belong to none other than the Creator, because they answer to the miracles of the Creator, both as performed by His servants and reserved for His Christ. And, then, even if some other proofs should be found in your Christ, that is, novelties, we would be more readily inclinced to believe that even they belong to the same one as the old ones, rather than to him who has nothing but new proofs which have not the witness of antiquity which wins faith, so that even here he should have come announced as much by prophecies of his own for the building up of faith in him, as by miracles, especially against the Creator's Christ who was to come fortified by signs and prophets of His own, that he might shine forth as a rival of Christ in every way. But how was his Christ to be foretold by a God who never predicted? This, therefore, must obtain: that neither your God nor your Christ are to be believed, because God should not have been unknown and Christ should have been made known through God. Tertullian, Against Marcion Book 3, Chapter 3 1 Mk 13.21-22