From Tertullian, skilled in Latin and Greek.
Against Praxeas, 15
Et vidimus gloriam eius tanquam unigeniti a patre, utique filii scilicet visibilis, glorificati a patre invisibili. et ideo, quoniam sermonem dei deum dixerat, ne adiuvaret 20 adversariorum praesumptionem quasi patrem ipsum vidisset, ad distinguendum inter invisibilem patrem et filium visibilem superdicit ex abundanti, Deum nemo vidit unquam. quem deum? sermonem? atquin, Vidimus et audivimus et contrecta- vimus de sermone vitae, praedictum est. sed quem deum? 25 scilicet patrem, apud quem deus erat sermo unigenitus filius
, qui sinum patris ipse disseruit.
Chapter XV.—New Testament Passages Quoted. They Attest the Same Truth of the Son’s Visibility Contrasted with the Father’s Invisibility.
“And we have seen His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father;
that is, of course, 611
(the glory) of the Son, even Him who was visible, and was glorified by the invisible Father. And therefore, inasmuch as he had said that the Word of God was God, in order that he might give no help to the presumption of the adversary, (which pretended) that he had seen the Father Himself and
in order to draw a distinction between the invisible Father and the visible Son, he makes the additional assertion, ex abundanti
as it were: “No man hath seen God at any time.”7946
What God does he mean? The Word? But he has already said: “Him
we have seen and heard, and our hands have handled the Word of life.” Well, (I must again ask,) what God does he mean? It is of course the Father, with whom was the Word, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father,
and has Himself declared Him. (John 1:18)
unigenitus filius == μονογενὴς υἱός
This is not complicated, and shows why Tertullian is one strong evidence for the Traditional text and is not a mixed evidence.
Hort covers it on p.43 of his:
Hort adds Novatian, Victorinus , Vigilius , Hilary , Ambrose , and Augustine, to start.