Tertullian · a new plain-English translation from the original language
[1] There was no need, you say, for that kind of order, because he was going at once to prove himself, by the facts themselves, to be son, and sent, and God's Christ, through the evidence of mighty works. But I will deny that this alone was sufficient testimony for him — a proof which he himself later stripped of its authority, forewarning that a great many would arise afterward, performing signs and producing mighty portents to lead even the chosen astray, and that on that account they were not to be trusted; thereby showing that trust placed rashly in signs and wonders is all too easy to win, even on behalf of false Christs. [2] Or what sense does it make, if he wished to be proved, recognized, and received by that means — I mean by mighty works — yet was unwilling that others, coming just as suddenly and heralded by no prior authority, should be judged the same way? If it is because he came before them and was first to display evidence of mighty works, and so, as though claiming a spot at the baths, seized faith first and forestalled all comers after him — take care that he himself is not caught in the very condition of a latecomer, found to be later than a creator already known beforehand, whose mighty works had likewise already been performed, and who had already declared, on that very ground, that no others were to be believed — meaning, of course, those who came after him. [3] So then, if the very fact that he came first, and pronounced beforehand about those who would come later, is enough to exclude their claim to faith, then he too stands already condemned in advance by the one to whom he is found to be posterior; and the authority to establish this rule over later claimants belongs solely to the creator, who could be posterior to no one. Now, since it is my purpose here to demonstrate that the creator himself accomplished these very same mighty works — the only ones you claim as grounds for faith in your Christ — sometimes in earlier times through his servants, and sometimes as destined to be performed through his own Christ, I can with good reason take a shortcut from this alone: Christ ought all the more not to have been believed on the strength of mighty works alone, precisely because people could have interpreted him as belonging to none other than the creator, seeing that his works corresponded to the creator's works, both those already performed through his servants and those promised beforehand in his Christ. [4] Even if other evidences were found in your Christ, new ones, we would more readily believe that these new things, too, belong to the same one whose old things they are, than that they belong to one who has only new things, lacking the proof that comes from the tried and victorious ancient record — so that in this way too he ought to have come already foretold, faith being built for him as much by his own prior preachings as by his mighty works — especially since he was to come as an adversary of the creator's Christ, fortified with his own signs and prophecies, so that this rival of Christ might shine through in every kind of contrariety. But how could the Christ of a never-foretold god be foretold himself? This, then, is what your position demands — that neither your god nor your Christ be believed, since the god ought not to have remained unknown, and the Christ ought to have been recognized through his god.
4.