Observe that Tertullian also says, in
this particular, namely, “That the Father, bringing him forth out of himself,
made his Son;” (Quem ex semetipso proferendo, Filium fecit.—Tertul. lib.
2, contra. Marc. 2. 27), and “That the Father is the whole substance,
and the Son a portion and a derivation of that whole;” (Pater tota substantia
est, filius verò derivatío totius et portío.—Id. l. cont. Prax. cap. 9,
et passim in eo opere) and many other similar passages, which you meet with
here and there, in that excellent piece of his, written against Praxeas, which
will scarcely be reconciled to good sense. In like manner does Dionysius
Alexandrinus call the Son, “The work, or workmanship, of the Father:” Ποιημα και
γενητον ειναι
τον υιον
του θεου: (Dion.
Alex. apud Athanas. ep. de fide Dion. Alex. Vide et Basil. ep. 41, t. 2. p. 802) which are the very
terms that were so much quarrelled about in Arius. The eighty Fathers, who
condemned Paulus Samasatenus, bishop of Antioch, said expressly, “That the Son
is not of the same essence with the Father:” (Octoginta Episcopi olim
respuerunt το ομοουσιον.—Athan. ep. de Syn. Arim. et Seleu. Vide et Hilar.
de Syn. fol. 97) that is to say, they in express terms denied the ομοουσιον, or consubstantiality of the Son, which was
afterwards established in the council of Nice. (John
Daillé, A Treatise on the Right Use of the Fathers in the Decision of
Controversies Existing at This Day in Religion [2d ed.; Philadelphia:
Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1856], 113-14)
