TERTULLIAN - THE SON WAS: "SOMETHING DERIVED FROM" AND "A PORTION OF" THE FATHERS "SUBSTANTIA"

Tertullian.

He calls the Son: “something derived from” the Father, and “a portion of” the substantia. Whereas, in comparison, the Father is: “the entire (or whole)” substantia. He calls the Son: “something derived from” the Father once. And he calls the Son: “a portion” in at least three places in “Adversus Praxean,” or “Against Praxeas”:

[1.] Adversus Praxean 9.2(A).

[2.] Adversus Praxean 26.3.

[3.] Adversus Praxean 26.6.

LATIN TEXT: “...Pater enim tota substantia est, Filius vero, derivatio totius et portio...” - Against Praxeas 9.2(A). http://www.tertullian.org/latin/adversus_praxean.htm

“...For the Father is the whole substance, but the Son is a derivation from, and a portion of the whole...” - Against Praxeas 9.2(A), by Daniel Whitby.

“...For the Father is the entire substantia, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole...” - Against Praxeas 9.2(A), by Joel L. Watts? http://unsettledchristianity.com/tertullians-formula-in-greek/

“...The Father is the whole substance, while the Son, indeed, is a derivation and portion of the whole...” - Against Praxeas 9.2(A), by Jurgens.

“...For the Father is the whole substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole...” - Against Praxeas 9.2(A), by Isaac Watts.

“...For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole...” - Against Praxeas 9.2(A), by Peter Holmes. http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-43.htm#P10498_2941060

“...For the Father is the whole substance, while the Son is an outflow and assignment of the whole...” - Against Praxeas 9.2(A), by Ernest Evans. http://www.tertullian.org/articles/evans_praxeas_eng.htm

“...For the Father is all being, the Son is a tributary, and a portion...” - Against Praxeas 9.2(A), by Alexander Souter.

LATIN TEXT: “...dicens autem, Spiritus Dei, etsi Spiritus Deus, tamen non directo Deum nominans portionem totius intellegi voluit quae cessura erat in Filii nomen...” - Against Praxeas 26.3.

“...For when he said “The Spirit of God,” (although God is spirit), yet since he did not mention God in the nominative case he wished there to be understood an assignment of the whole which was to go to the Son's account...” - Against Praxeas 26.3, by Ernest Evans.

“...Now, by saying “the Spirit of God” (although the Spirit of God is God,) and by not directly naming God, he wished that portion of the whole Godhead to be understood, which was about to retire into the designation of “the Son...” - Against Praxeas 26.3, by Peter Holmes.

“...But by saying “the Spirit of God,” (although the Spirit of God is God), yet by not explicitly naming God, he wished a portion of the whole to be understood which was to pass into the Son's person...” - Against Praxeas 26.3, by Alexander Souter.

LATIN TEXT: “...Quodsi spiritus dei, tamquam substantiva res, non erit ipse deus sed hactenus deus qua ex ipsius dei substantia, qua et substantiva res est et ut portio aliqua totius...” - Against Praxeas 26.6.

“...But if a God belonging to God, so to speak, a self-existent thing, will not be God Himself, but only so far God as it comes from the being of God Himself, which is also a self-existent thing, and as some portion of the whole...” - Against Praxeas 26.6, by Alexander Souter.

“...Now that which is God of God, although He is an actually existing thing, yet He cannot be God Himself (exclusively), but so far God as He is of the same substance as God Himself, and as being an actually existing thing, and as a portion of the Whole...” - Against Praxeas 26.6, by Peter Holmes.

“...But if the Spirit of God, as being a substantive thing, will not be God himself, but in that sense God as being from the substance of God himself, in that it is a substantive thing and a certain assignment of the whole...” - Against Praxeas 26.6, by Ernest Evans.