5.  But the Saviour comes in various forms to each man for his profit Cf. Athanas. (Epist. X.):  “Since He is rich and manifold, He varies Himself according to the individual capacity of each soul.”.  For to those who have need of gladness He becomes a Vine; and to those who want to enter in He stands as a Door; and to those who need to offer up their prayers He stands a mediating High Priest.  Again, to those who have sins He becomes a Sheep, that He may be sacrificed for them.  He is made all things to all men 1 Cor. ix. 22., remaining in His own nature what He is.  For so remaining, and holding the dignity of His Sonship in reality unchangeable, He adapts Himself to our infirmities, just as some excellent physician or compassionate teacher; though He is Very Lord, and received not the Lordship by advancement ἐκ προκοπῆς.  We learn from Athanasius (c. Arian. i. 37, 38, 40), that from St. Paul’s language Philipp. ii. 9:  “Wherefore also God highly exalted Him, &c.,” and from Ps. xlv. 7:  “Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity:  therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows,” the Arians argued that Christ first received Divine honour as Son and Lord as the reward of His obedience as Man.  Athanasius replies (c. 40):  “He was not from a lower state promoted; but rather, existing as God, He took the form of a servant, and in taking it was not promoted but humbled Himself.  Where then is there here any reward of virtue, or what advancement (προκοπή) and promotion in humiliation?” The same doctrine had been previously held by the disciples of Paul of Samosata, who said that Christ was not originally God, but after His Incarnation was by advance (ἐκ προκοπῆς) made God, from being made by nature a mere man:  see Athanas. (de Decretis, § 24, c. Arian. i. 38).  S. Cyril refers to the error and uses the same word, in xi. 1, 7, 13, 15, 17, and xiv. 27., but has the dignity of His Lordship from nature, and is not called Lord improperly καταχρηστικῶς, i.e. in a secondary or metaphorical sense.  Cf. vii. 5., as we are, but is so in verity, since by the Father’s bidding νεύματι, “command” or “bidding,” as expressed by nodding the head. He is Lord of His own works.  For our lordship is over men of equal rights and like passions, nay often over our elders, and often a young master rules over aged servants.  But in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ the Lordship is not so:  but He is first Maker, then Lord Origen (De Principiis, I. ii. 10) had argued that “even God cannot be called omnipotent, unless there exist those over whom He may exercise His power,” and therefore creation must have been eternal, or God could not have been eternally Omnipotent.  In other passages Origen declares it an impiety to hold that matter is co-eternal with God (De Princip. II. i. 4), and yet maintains that there were other worlds before this, and that there was never a time when there was no world existing. Methodius, in a fragment of his work On things Created, preserved by Photius, and quoted by Bishop Bull (Def. Fid. Nic. II. xiii. 9), argues against these theories of Origen, that in John i. 2 the words “The same was in the beginning with God” indicate the authority (τὸ ἐξουσιαστικόν) of the Word which He had with the Father before the world came into existence; since from all eternity God the Father, together with His Word, possessed the Almighty power whereby whenever He would He could create worlds to rule over. Dean Church remarks that “On the other hand Tertullian, contra Hermog. 3, considering the attributes in question to belong not to the Divine Nature, but Office, denies that God was Almighty (Lord?) from eternity; while the Greeks affirmed this (vid. Cyril Alex. in Joann. xvii. 8, p. 963; Athan. Orat. ii. 12–14), as understanding by the term the inherent but latent attribute of doing what He had not yet done, τὸ ἐξουσιαστικόν.” Cleopas, the Jerusalem Editor, regards the passage as directed against Paul of Samosata, who asserted that Christ had become God, and received His kingdom and Lordship only after His Incarnation, and remarks:—“S. Cyril evidently regards the Lordship of Jesus Christ as twofold:  one that which from eternity belonged to Him as God, which he calls natural, according to which ‘He was ever both Lord and King, as being by nature God’ (Cyril Alex. in Johann. cap. xvii.); and the other the Lordship in time relative to the creatures, by which He exercises dominion over the works created by Him, as being their Maker.“:  first He made all things by the Father’s will, then, He is Lord of the things which were made by Him.