“If before the creation the Son was not a generated being but a created being, οὐ γέννημα ἀλλὰ κτίσμα.  The use of the word γέννημα in this book is one of the arguments alleged against its genuineness, for in Book. II., Capp. 6, 7, and 8.  Basil objects to it; but in the same Book II., Cap. 32, he uses it apparently without objection in the sentence ἐκ τοῦ γεννήματος νοῆσαι ῥ& 140·διον τοῦ γεγεννηκότος τὴν φύσιν.  Maran, Vit. Bas. xliii. 7. He would have been called first created and not firstborn. The English word firstborn is not an exact rendering of the Greek πρωτότοκος, and in its theological use it may lead to confusion.  “Bear” and its correlatives in English are only used of the mother.  τίκτω (¶TEK. cf. Ger. Zeug.) is used indifferently of both father and mother.  πρωτότοκος is exactly rendered firstborn in Luke ii. 7; but first begotten, as in A.V. Heb. i. 6, and Rev. i. 5, more precisely renders the word in the text, and in such passages as Ex. xiii. 2, and Psalm lxxxix. 28, which are Messianically applied to the divine Word.  So early as Clemens Alexandrinus the only begotten and first begotten had been contrasted with the first created, and highest order of created being.  With him may be compared Tertullian, Adv. Prax. 7, Adv. Marc. v. 19, Hippolytus, Hær. x. 33, Origen, C. Cels. vi. 47, 63, 64, In Ioann. 1, § 22 (iv. p. 21), xix. § 5 (p. 305), xxviii. § 14 (p. 392), Cyprian, Test. ii. 1, Novatian, De Trin. 16.  On the history and uses of the word, see the exhaustive note of Bp. Lightfoot on Col. i. 15.  If, because He is called first begotten of creation He is first created, then because He is called first begotten of the dead Rev. i. 5. He would be the first of the dead who died.  If on the other hand He is called first begotten of the dead because of His being the cause of the resurrection from the dead, He is in the same manner called first begotten of creation, because He is the cause of the bringing of the creature from the non existent into being.  If His being called first begotten of creation indicates that He came first into being then the Apostle, when he said, ‘all things were created by Him and for Him’ Col. i. 16. ought to have added, ‘And He came into being first of all.’  But in saying ‘He is before all things,’ Col. i. 17. he indicated that He exists eternally, while the creature came into being.  ‘Is’ in the passage in question is in harmony with the words ‘In the beginning was the Word.’ John i. 1.  It is urged that if the Son is first begotten, He cannot be only begotten, and that there must needs be some other, in comparison with whom He is styled first begotten.  Yet, O wise objector, though He is the only Son born of the Virgin Mary, He is called her first born.  For it is said, ‘Till she brought forth her first born Son.’ Matt. i. 25.  There is therefore no need of any brother in comparison with whom He is styled first begotten. Jerome’s Tract on the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin appeared about 383, and was written at Rome in the episcopate of Damasus (363–384).  The work of Helvidius which Jerome controverted was not published till about 380, and there can be no reference to him in the passage in the text.  Basil is contending against the general Arian inference, rather than against any individual statement  as to who the “Brethren of the Lord” were.  cf. also dub. Hom. in Sanct. Christ. Gen. p. 600. Ed. Garn.  On the whole subject see Bp. Lightfoot, in his Ep. to the Galatians, E. S. Ffoulkes in D.C.B. s.v. Helvidius, and Archdeacon Farrar in his Life of Christ, chap. vii., who warmly supports the Helvidian theory in opposition to the almost universal belief of the early Church.  Basil evidently has no more idea that the ἕως οὗ of Matt. i. 25, implies anything as to events subsequent to the τόκος than the author of 2 Sam. had when he said that Michal had no child till (LXX. ἕως) the day of her death, or St. Paul had that Christ’s reigning till (ἄχρις οὗ) He had put all enemies under His feet implied that He would not reign afterwards.  Too much importance must not be given to niceties of usage in Hellenistic Greek, but it is a well-known distinction in Attic Greek that πρίν with the infinitive is employed where the action is not asserted to take place, while it is used with the indicative of a past fact.  Had St. Matthew written πρίν συνῆλθον, the Helvidians might have laid still greater stress than they did on the argument from Matt. i. 18, which St. Jerome ridicules.  His writing πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν is what might have been expected if he wished simply to assert that the conception was not preceded by any cohabitation.