Gibb's Manual Lexicon [pp. 269-277]

Gibbs's Manual Lexicotn.
Deist. Be it remembered, that we now refer simply to what
appears upon the face of the record. It may be, that Professor
Gibbs has reached the same conclusions by legitimate deduction. It may be, that he believes on philological principle,
that SPIRIT OF GOD was never meant to convey to the pious
Jew the remotest intimation of any thing more than "the lifegiving breath or power of God in men and animals, which
moved over the chaos at the creation, and operates through
the universe,' and produces whatever is noble and good in
man, by making him wise, and leading him to virtue, and by
guiding him generally; but that it is especially applied to extraordinary powers and gifts." (Mianual, p. 200.) It may
be that his own researches have convinced him that SON or
GOD is only applied "to angels or inferior gods,'" or "to servants and worshippers of God," "to kings and magistrates,"
as such, (p. 12) for this is no new doctrine. It may be, that,
aside from all example and authority, he thinks it proper to
explain the word Mlessiah without even hinting at the coincidence between that term and Christ, and indeed to exclude
from his volume all allusions to the existence of a later and a
better dispensation. All this, we say, may be the fair result
of personal inquiry, and as such it calls for refutation, not for
censure or complaint. But what surprises us is the appearance of uniform agreemcnt with Gesenius, and the fact that
some of the definitions upon these important points are taken
unaltered from articles, the object of which is to explain
away the inspiration of the Scriptures and the truths of revelation. Can the detached parts of a rotten system be so uniformly sound? We have not forgotten, in the course of our
remarks, that sentence of the preface, which informs the reader, that "the plan of this work excludes all suLpposititious
meanings resting only on inference and analogy." This explanation might have satisfied us, had we not perceived that
some meanings are excluded as "supposititious," which to us
seem direct and as clear as noon-day, while others are inserted
which are not even founded upon inference and analogy, but
rest on mere conjecture. The only reason that we can assign
for the distinction is, that Gesenius rejects the former and admits the latter. His inconsistency can be explained on other
principles than those of mere philology. Of the omission, we
have already given specimens. Of the unauthorized insertions (unauthorized, we mean, by the rule laid down in the
preface) an instance may be found upon the last page of the
275