PRINCE 580 PROCONSUL Greeks, wished to attach a signification to a-pur& roxos in Matt. i. and Luke ii., different from the O. T. usage, maintaining, in order to support their hypothesis—(viz., that Joseph and Mary had chil dren after the birth of our Lord)—that the word rpuirbroKos, by reason of its etymology, could not be applied to an only child. Jerome replied to the former by appealing to the usage of the word in the O. T. (adv. Helvid. in Matt. i. 9). The assertion of Eunomius was equally refuted by the Greek fathers, Basil (Horn. izz Nat.), Theo phylact (in Luc. ii.), and Damascenus (De fid. Orthod., 1. iv.) In reference to this controversy, Drusius (Ad Difciliora lace Aim., cap. 6) observes: Sic sane Christus vocatur 1TpwrdroKos, licet mater ejus nullos alias postea liberos habuerit. Notet hoc juventus propter Helvidium, qui ex ea voce infercbat Mariam ex Josepho post Christum natum plures filios suscepisse." Those entitled to the
prerogative' [viz., of birthright], observes Campbell (On the Gospels), were invariably denominated the first-born, whether the parents had issue after wards or not.' Eunomius further maintains, from Col. i. 15, that our Lord was a creature ;' but his arguments were replied to by Basil and Theo phylact. Some of the Fathers referred this passage to Christ's pre-existence, others to his baptism. In Is. xiv. 3o, the first-born of the poor' signifies the poorest of all ; and in Job xviii. 13, the first-born of death' means the most terrible of deaths. See Suicer's Thesaurus; Leigh's Critica Sacra ; Wahl's ClavzIr ; Rose's edition of Parkhurst's Lexicon ; and Cruden's Concordance.—W. W.