“If when the Son asked to be glorified of the Father He was asking in respect of His Godhead, and not of His manhood, He asked for what He did not possess.  Therefore the evangelist speaks falsely when he says ‘we beheld His glory’; John i. 14. and the apostle, in the words ‘They would not have crucified the Lord of glory,’ 1 Cor. ii. 8. and David in the words ‘And the King of glory shall come in.’ Ps. xxiv. 7.  It is not therefore an increase of glory which he asks.  He asks that there may be a manifestation of the œconomy. i.e. of the incarnation, cf. pp. 7, 12.  Again, if He really asked that the glory which He had before the world might be given Him of the Father, He asked it because He had lost it.  He would never have sought to receive that of which He was in possession.  But if this was the case, He had lost not only the glory, but also the Godhead.  For the glory is inseparable from the Godhead.  Therefore, according to Photinus, On Photinus cf. Socrates, Ecc. Hist. ii. 29, and Theodoret, Hær. Fab. iii. 1, and Epiphanius, Hær. lxxi. § 2.  The question as to what Synod condemned and deposed him has been thought to have been settled in favour of that of Sirmium in 349.  (D.C.B. iv. 394.)  cf. Hefele’s Councils, tr. Oxenham, ii. 188. He was mere man.  It is then clear that He spoke these words in accordance with the œconomy of the manhood, and not through failure in the Godhead.”