Tertullian on God as written in "Against Hermogenes"

We say the name of God always existed with Himself and in Himself, but the name of Lord not always. There is a difference in what is to be understood by each of the terms. God, of course, is the name of the substance itself, which is Divinity; Lord, however, is not the name of a substance but of a power. The substance, I maintain, always existed with its own name, which is God. The name Lord came afterwards, when, of course, something was added. Ever since those things began to exist, over which the power of the Lord might act, from that very moment, through the accession of power, He both became Lord and received that name. God is Father, and likewise, God is Judge; but it does not follow that He is always Faterh and Judge, simply on the grounds that He is always God; for He could not be Father before the Son was, nor Judge before there was sin.[3,3-4]

Whatever special property God has, it must necessarily be unique, so that it can belong to Him who is One. But what can be unique and singular except that to which nothing can be equated? What can be principal, if not that which is above all, if not that which is before all and from which all things are? It is by being the sole possessor of these qualities that He is God; and by being sole possessor, that He is One. And if another should have them, then there will be as many gods as there are beings who possess the qualities proper to God. It is thus that Hermogenes implies two Gods: he introducesmatter as equal to God. God, however, must be One, because that which is supreme is God; but nothing can be supreme except that which is unique; but nothing can be unique if something else can be made its equal. Matter, however, will be made equal to God, if it be reckoned as eternal.[4,3-6]

Worse than that, by contending that God made all things out of matter, Heremogenes even makes matter superior to God, and subjects God to it. If God used matter in the work of creating the world, matter is thereby found to be superior, since it provided Him with the material for His work; and thus God were seen to be subject to matter, whose substance He needed. There is no one who does not need him whose property he uses; and there is no one who is not subject to him whose property he needs to make use of. And again, there is no one who, by using the property of another, is not inferior to him whose property he uses; and there is no one who allows his property to be used by another, who is not thereby superior to him whom he allows to use it. Therefore, matter itself, no doubt, was not in need of God, but rahter lent itaself to God, who needed it - rich and abundant and liberal as it was, to One who was, I suppose, too small and weak and too unskilled to make what He wanted out of nothing. What grand benefit matter conferred upon God, that today He should have something whereby He can be known as God and be called the Almighty - except that He is no longer Almighty, if He was not able to do this also: to make all things out of nothing. To be sure, matter would have conferred something on itself in getting itself acknowledged together with God, as coequal to God and even as His helper - except that Hermogenes is the only man who ever knew this, along with those partriarchs of the heretics, the philosophers. At any rate, up to the present time it has escaped the Prophets and the Apostles, and, I think, Christ too.[8,1-3]

I do not see how Hermogenes can escape the fact that God, in whatever way He created evil out of matter, either of His on will or of necessity or for some reason, cannot be regarded as the author of evil. Further, if the author of evil is He that actually made it, matter being merely associated with Him by providing Him with its substance, then the reason for which matter was introduced is dismissed. For if matter is assumed so that God will not seem to be the authorof evil, nevertheless, God is still, through the instumentality of matter, shown to be the author of evil. Matter, then, having been excluded because the reason for its having been introduced is dismissed, it remains that God undoubtedly made all things out of nothing. We shall see whether this includes evil things, when it becomes apparent what things are evil, and whether those things really are evil which at present you regard such.[16,3-4]

This rule [that all things were created out of nothing] is upheld by the fact of God's being unique. He is the unique God for this reason alone, that He is the sole God; and He is the sole God for this reason alone, that nothing existed along with Him. So too, He must be the first, because all else is after Him. All else is after Him because all else is from Him - and from Him because they are created out of nothing. The account of Scripture, then, is correct: "Who has known the mind of the Lord? or who has been His counsellor? or whom has He consulted? or who showed Him the way of wisdom and knowledge? who gave, and recompense will be made to him?"[17,1]

"Letters" , in The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1, pages 134-135.

Brief Biography: 155/160 - 240/250. Born in Carthage as Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus to pagan parents between 155 and 160. He became a lwayer of considerable repute, and after his conversion, ca. 193, used his expert knowledge in law to defend Christianity. He was a priest, according to Jerome, and most of his writings were done between 197 and 220. His writings fall into three distinct periods: Catholic 197-206, semi-Montanist 206-212, and Montanist 213-220. Against Hermogenes was written between 200-206. Hermogenes was an artist and a gnostic of Carthage