SON 



The children of the king of England are called fans and 

 daughters of England. The eldeft fon is born duke of Corn- 

 wall, and created prince of Wales. The younger fons are 

 called cadets. 



The king of France's children were anciently called Jils 

 wA files de France, fons and daughters of France; and the 

 grand-children, pet its Jils and petits files de France. At a 

 later period, the daughters were called mefdames ; and the 

 grand-daughters mefdemoifelles de France. 



Son, Natural. See Bastard. 



Son, Adbptive. See Adoptive. 



Son of God, is a term ufed in various fenfes in the holy 

 fcripture, a-, i. For Jefus Chrift, or the Saviour of man- 

 kind ; who is thus called, as fome fay, with refpeft to the 

 manner of his generation, as being begotten of the Father. 



This feems to have been the opinion of Dr. Clark, in his 

 « Scripture Doftrine of the Trinity." Generation, fays 

 he, when apphed to God, is but a figurative word, fignify- 

 ing only, in general, immediate derivation of being and life 

 from God himfelf : and " only begotten" fignifies being fo 

 derived from the Father, in a Angular and inconceivable 

 manner, as thereby to be diftinguilhed from all other beings. 

 Among men, a fon does not, properly fpeaking, derive his 

 being from his father ; father, in this fenfe, fignifying 

 merely an inftrumental, not an efficient, caufe : but God, 

 when he is ilyled father, muft necelfarily be nnderftood to 

 be (ai7i») a true and proper caufe, really and efficiently 

 giving life. This confideration, he fays, clearly removes 

 the argument ufually drawn from the equality between a 

 father and fon upon earth. It is obfervable, as our author 

 proceeds, that St. John, in that paflage, where he not only 

 fpeaks of the Word before his incarnation, but carries his 

 account of him farther back than any other place in the 

 whole New Teftament, gives not the lead hint of the meta- 

 phyfical manner how he derived his being from the Father ; 

 does not lay, he was created, or emitted, or begotten, or 

 was an emanation from him, but only that he rjias, that he 

 was in the ieginnin^, that he -was -u>ith God, and that he was 

 (©!k;) partaker of divine power and glory with and from 

 the Father, not only before he was made fejh or became man, 

 but alfo before the world tuns. As the fcripture, fays Dr. 

 Clark, has no where diftinftly declared in what particular 

 metaphyfical manner the Son derives his being from the 

 Father, men ought not to prefume to be able to define. 



Some fuppofe, that this title of " fon of God" belongs 

 to Clirilt, on account of his polfeffing the fame divine na- 

 ture with the Father. Accordingly bifhop Pearfon fays, 

 the communication of the divine eflence by the Father vi-as 

 the true and proper generation, by which he hath begotten 

 a foil. A fon is nothing but anotiier produced by his 

 father, of the fame nature with him. But God the Father 

 hath communicated to the Word the fame divine ciTence, by 

 which he is God ; and he fays, the Father hath the effence 

 or attributes of himfelf, and the Son by communication 

 from the Father. But Dr. Waterland denies any literal 

 generation of the fon at all ; for he fuppofes his being in 

 the Father, before he was generated, to be the firft and 

 moll proper fihation or generation ; which he allows to be 

 a mere co-exillence with the Father, and not any derivation 

 from him. 



Whilft the Athanafians believed the Father and Son to 

 be of the fame fubllance, «'. e. of the fame generlcal fubltance, 

 as two men are of the fame fubilance ; and the Pfeudo- 

 Athanafians believed them to be of the fame identical na- 

 mertcal fubftance ; the Arians, who believed the divine 

 fubftance of the Father to be oii--nr7\oc, unbetfotten, and 

 aiajJC"') without beginning, concluded, that it was different 



SON 



from the fubftance of the Son, who was begotten, and had 

 a beginning. Moreover, as they believed the divine fub- 

 Itance of the Father to be indivifible and uncompounded, 

 they could not believe the Son to be generated in or from it, 

 in any literal fenfe, either as being compounded with it, or 

 divided from it ; and, therefore, they concluded, that the 

 generation of the Son was fgurative, and was not a parti- 

 cipation of fubltance, but a creation ; as the word creation 

 is frequently ufed in fcripture with regard to mankind. 

 They believed that Chrift was the only begotten Son of 

 God, becaufe he only was created by the immediate aft and 

 power of God himfelf, and that all other beings, the Holy 

 Ghoft not excepted, were created by Chrift ; in which they 

 agreed with Origen and Eufebius ; and, therefore, they called 

 him a creature, but not like other creatures ; but they be- 

 lieved that he was generated or created before all ages. 



Sonfhip, fays Dr. Lardner, in his " Letter on the Lo- 

 gos," (Works, vol. X. vol. xi. ) is a term of nearnefs, dear- 

 nefs, and affeftion ; and Jefus is the Son of God, lit, upon 

 account of hi 5 miraculous conception and birth (Luke,i. 31 — 

 35); zdly, upon account of the efpecial commiflion gives 

 him by the Father, and the extraordinary qualifications be- 

 llowed upon him, in order to his fulfilling it (Matt. iii. 16. 

 Mark, i. ic. Luke, iii. 31,22. John, i. 32 — 34. iii. 34. 

 If. xi. 1 — 3. xhi. I — 4. Ixi. I — 3. and Matt. xii. 17. 

 Luke, iv. 1 8, 19.) ; 3dly, on account of his refurreftion from 

 the dead on the third day, to die no more ( Rom. i. 3, 4. 

 Heb. i.6.); 4thly, on accountof his exaltation to God's right 

 hand, and being inverted with authority and dominion over 

 all flefa, and conftituted judge of the world, by whom God 

 will pafs fentence upon all mankind (John, iii. 35. v. 21, 

 22. Heb. i. I, 2. iii. 5, 6.) ; 5thly, on account of the pour- 

 ing out of abundance of fpiritual gifts, though in different 

 degrees, upon his apoftles, and thofe who beheved in him 

 after his refurreftion (John, i. 32 — 34. Matt. iii. 1. Mark, 

 i. 8. Luke, iii. i6. John, vii. 37 — 39. Afts, xi. 15, 16. 

 i. 5. ii. I — 36. Gal. iv. 6. Eph. ix. 8 — 13.) Upon 

 all thefe accounts, and not only upon account of his mira- 

 culous conception and birth, is Jefus " the Son of God." 

 Our author fuggelts, that the paffages which he has cited 

 manifettly fhew, that it is in reipeft to his humanity, and 

 the dignity conferred upon it, that he has the title of the 

 Son of God. This learned author rejefts the opinion of 

 thofe who underftand by the " Son of God," an intelligent 

 being or emanation, begotten by the Father, or proceeding 

 from him, in an ineffable manner, from all eternity, and of 

 the fame effence or fubftance with the Father ; and alfo 

 of others, who underftand by this appellation a mighty 

 (pirit, or angel, begotten or formed by the will of the Fa- 

 ther, in time, before the creation of the world, and of a 

 different fubftance from the Father ; which fon of God, as 

 they fay, became incarnate, that is, united himfelf, either 

 to the hum.an natufe, confifting of foul and body, or to an 

 human body, fo as to fupply the place of a human foul. 

 Thefe fenfes of the title, as he fays, arc not to be found in 

 any of the books of the New Teftament. The Jews, ac- 

 cording to Whitby upon Rom. ix. 5. had no notion that 

 their Meffiah ffiould be any thing more than mere man. 

 See alfo Jortin's Difcourfcs concerning the Chriftian Re- 

 ligion, p. 17. In the gofpcls, as Dr. Lardner obferves, 

 this title of the " Son of God" is given to our Lord, by 

 many who took him to be a man fpccially favoured by 

 God. (Matt. xvi. 16. and the parallel places. John, vi, 

 69. John, i. 34. iii. 3^, 36. John, i. 49. xi. 27. Matt. 

 xiv. 33. Luke, iv. 41.) Our bleffed Lord likewife often 

 takes it to himfelf, either direftly orindireftly. (John, iii. 

 17,18, V. 25. ix. 35 — 37. X. 36. X!. 4.) IntheJewifh 



ftyle. 



