"II. The Son is from the Father by reason of manner of subsistence in essence, not by reason of essence
It is an excellent distinction with theology where it is said, the Son is not autoousios but autotheos. It must be known a great disputation arose between the Arminians, Vorstius and our churches, because the Arminians and Vorstius were declaring the Son to be from the Father with respect to essence, and thus not autotheon - God from himself: which if so, is depending God, therefore a creature." - Johannes Maccovius, Restored Work, Chapter 5, Concerning God the Father
It would seem that Maccovius agrees with the ancient church that the Son receives his essence from the Father (not autoousios), and his only objection to the Arminians is over the term autotheos. Two things:
1. I think Arminius' clarification on what Autotheos means is helpful (see this post).
2. I don't believe his argument stating that the Son would be a creature if not autotheos is conclusive. The Father is "dependent" on the Son in order to be a Father. Does this mean he is also a creature?