the Church and
the papacy to the letter of the sacred books, intensified for a time the
devotion of Christendom to this sacred theory of language. The belief
was strongly held that the writers of the Bible were merely pens in
the hand of God (Dei calami.{;?} Hence the conclusion that not only the
sense but the words, letters, and even the punctuation proceeded from
the Holy Spirit. Only on this one question of the origin of the Hebrew
points was there any controversy, and this waxed hot. It began to be
especially noted that these vowel points in the Hebrew Bible did not
exist in the synagogue rolls, were not mentioned in the Talmud, and
seemed unknown to St. Jerome; and on these grounds some earnest men
ventured to think them no part of the original revelation to Adam.
Zwingli, so much before most of the Reformers in other respects,
was equally so in this. While not doubting the divine origin and
preservation of the Hebrew language as a whole, he denied the antiquity
of the vocal points, demonstrated their unessential character, and
pointed out the fact that St. Jerome makes no mention of them. His
denial was long the refuge of those who shared this heresy.

But the full orthodox theory remained established among the vast
majority both of Catholics and Protestants. The attitude of the former
is well illustrated in the imposing work of the canon Marini, which
appeared at Venice in 1593, under the title of Noah's Ark: A New
Treasury of the Sacred Tongue. The huge folios begin with the
declaration that the Hebrew tongue was "divinely inspired at the very
beginning of the world," and the doctrine is steadily maintained that
this divine inspiration extended not only to the letters but to the
punctuation.

Not before the seventeenth century was well under way do we find a
thorough scholar bold enough to gainsay this preposterous doctrine. This
new assailant was Capellus, Professor of Hebrew at Saumur; but he dared
not put forth his argument in France: he was obliged to publish it in
Holland, and even there such obstacles were thrown in his way that it
was ten years before he published another treatise of importance.

The work of Capellus was received as settling the question by very many
open-minded scholars, among whom was Hugo Grotius. But many theologians
felt this view to be a blow at the sanctity and integrity of the sacred
text; and in 1648 the great scholar, John Buxtorf the younger, rose
to defend the orthodox cit