He explains the phrase The Lord created Me, and the argument about the origination of the Son, the deceptive character of Eunomius' reasoning, and the passage which says, My glorywill I not give to another, examining them from different points of view
Why should I pursue this part of the subject in more detail? For the words preceding also are tainted with the same profanity— “receiving glory from the Father, not sharing glory with the Father, for the glory of the Almighty God is incommunicable.” For my own part, even had his words referred to Moses who was glorified in the ministration of the Law,— not even then should I have tolerated such a statement, even if it be conceded that Moses, having no glory from within, appeared completely glorious to the Israelites by the favour bestowed on him from God.
For the very glory that was bestowed on the lawgiver was the glory of none other but of God Himself, which glory the Lord in the Gospel bids all to seek, when He blames those who value human glory highly and seek not the glory that comes from God only. For by the fact that He commanded them to seek the glory that comes from the only God, He declared the possibility of their obtaining what they sought. How then is the glory of the Almighty incommunicable, if it is even our duty to ask for the glory that comes from the only God, and if, according to our Lord's word, “every one that asks receives?”
But one who says concerning the Brightness of the Father's glory, that He has the glory by having received it, says in effect that the Brightness of the glory is in Itself devoid of glory, and needs, in order to become Himself at last the Lord of some glory, to receive glory from another. How then are we to dispose of the utterances of the Truth,— one which tells us that He shall be seen in the glory of the Father, and another which says, “All things that the Father has are Mine”?
To whom ought the hearer to give ear? To him who says, “He that is, as the Apostle says, the 'heir of all things ' that are in the Father, is without part or lot in His Father's glory”; or to Him Who declares that all things that the Father has, He Himself has also? Now among the “all things,” glory surely is included. Yet Eunomius says that the glory of the Almighty is incommunicable. This view Joel does not attest, nor yet the mighty Peter, who adopted, in his speech to the Jews, the language of the prophet.
For both the prophet and the apostle say, in the person of God—“I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh.” He then Who did not grudge the partaking in His own Spirit to all flesh—how can it be that He does not impart His own glory to the only-begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, Who has all things that the Father has? Perhaps one should say that Eunomius is here speaking the truth, though not intending it. For the term “impart” is strictly used in the case of one who has not his glory from within, whose possession of it is an accession from without, and not part of his own nature: but where one and the same nature is observed in both Persons, He Who is as regards nature all that the Father is believed to be stands in no need of one to impart to Him each several attribute.
This it will be well to explain more clearly and precisely. He Who has the Father dwelling in Him in His entirety— what need has He of the Father's glory, when none of the attributes contemplated in the Father is withdrawn from Him?
Source: Against Eunomius (New Advent)