De Moor II:4: The Word of God Written

The same reasons that teach that God most wisely instructed His Church through the space of two thousand and five hundred years by the ἀγράφῳ/unwritten Word alone:  the same, I say, taken up and inverted, show by degrees the utility and propriety of the writing of the divine Word; since from the age of Moses, 1.  the age of men was much diminished, 2.  the seed of Abraham was formed by God into an adopted people of His own possession, a numerous nation, 3.  apparitions did not happen so frequently and commonly to the faithful, 4.  and the craft of Satan gradually grew, who transforms himself into an angel of light:[1]  hence hereafter the ἄγραφον/unwritten Word of God would not be able so easily to be delivered without corruption to posterity.

And so in the time of Moses and thereafter God gave a Commandment

1.  To His ministers to Write:  which was

              α.  Either Explicit, which sort frequently occurs, Exodus 17:14; 34:27; Numbers 33:2; etc.; Isaiah 8:1, Now, Jehovah said to me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it was a man’s pen concerning Maher-shalal-hash-baz.  Which commandment HUET,[2] in his Demonstratione Evangelica, proposition VII, § 15, scandalously draws unto a commandment to the Prophet to lie with his wife, in such a way that the Wife is called a great volume; and the pen of a man denotes that member which is not able to be named with decency; and the Prophet is commanded to write in it, Swiftly drag away the spoil, quickly plunder,[3] that is, to beget a son with her, for whom this was going to be the name.  Which certainly is to make sport in a serious matter.  Neither for the sake of modesty, as Huet professes, was it necessary for the Spirit to make use of this figurative sort of speech.  It would have been far more decent without circumlocution to instruct the Prophet, Take thy wife, apply thyself to the procreation of children, than to make use of figurative speech of this sort.  Although GREGORY NYSSEN in a somewhat similar exegesis goes before him, opera, tome 2, page 155 D, in which, among Testimonies concerning the Birth of Messiah from a Virgin, Testimonies found there in Latin, is also cited Isaiah 8:1, 3, and is added for the sake of illustration:  “Therefore, by the Scroll we understand the young Virgin.  For, just as a new sheet is pure, when it is without writing:  so also the holy Virgin is without intercourse with a man.”  The matter itself speaks.  The great roll denotes a sheet, parchment, or tablet, which God willed to be great, either on account of the multitude of those things that were to be inscribed, or so that it might be all the more for show, suspended somewhere on a wall.  He wills that it be written with the pen of a man, that is, to be read as clearly, perspicuously, and aptly, as it is able to be done by a man, to denote in this way the writing’s obviousness:  consult WITSIUS’ Miscellaneorum sacrorum, tome 1, book I, chapter XIII, § 2, 3.  Habakkuk 2:2, Jehovah answered me, saying:  Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, so that he may run that readeth it; that is, God wills the vision to be written, set forth upon tables, so clearly, so plainly, that not only might someone walking past have the opportunity to read; but also someone reading it might be able to run, that is, to read it expeditiously, not sticking anywhere because of the difficulty of the writing:  or by hypallage, that anyone that even runs by on the street might be able to read the vision:  consult our AUTHOR’S Commentarium in Prophetas minores, on this passage; and WITSIUS’ Miscellaneorum sacrorum, tome 1, book I, chapter XIII, § 4; likewise CARPZOV’S[4] Introductionem ad Libros Propheticos Veteris Testamenti, chapter I, § 15, pages 40, 41.  Revelation 1:19.  These and similar individual, explicit commands, in the rest do not exclude, but rather include and suppose the command to write, which one may in some things deduce from the lesser to the greater.  Indeed, the fidelity of the Amanuenses does not allow us to doubt concerning this, since it does not belong to a faithful ambassador to do anything beyond his mandate.

              β.  Or this Commandment was Implicit, when it was commanded to Men of God to instruct men of a following age, who would live after their deaths, Isaiah 6:9, 10, with a comparison of the repeated citation of this passage in the New Testament,[5] and of the application of its argument to the age of Christ and the Apostles, Matthew 28:19, 20, for we are hardly able to teach posterity and those absent in any other way than by writing.  Neither does it hence follow that, if the Command to teach, Matthew 28:19, implicitly also was obliging to write, all the Apostles were obliged to write, at any time they might not duly discharge their office.  And indeed, this Command was obliging all in such a way that, nevertheless, a peculiar impulse and determination of the Spirit was required to be added for the execution of specific parts of this Commandment.  Therefore, all the Apostles were bound to the best of their ability and according to the leading of the Spirit to teach all Nations; but instruction through the written Word was restricted to a few of them by a special dispensation of God; by which, from those things which the few had written, it would be evident what the rest taught; and what after their deaths should be taught in the world unto the consummation of the age.

              α.  Again, that Command to write was either Internal, through the impulse of the Spirit, which all the θεόπνευστοι/inspired enjoyed; 2 Timothy 3:16, πᾶσα γραφὴ, all Scripture, that is, not simply λόγος/Word, but the λόγος γραπτὸς, Word written, is θεόπνευστος/ inspired; 2 Peter 1:21, upon which passage see my Commentarium.  Now, there is no more efficacious Command than the Inspiration of the things to be written; so that it would be ἀσύστατον/inadmissible to say that the Prophets and Apostles wrote with God inspiring and moving, and yet not commanding.

              β.  Or External, which came through necessary occasions of writing being set before them by God Himself, through which occasions He stirred up Men of God to write:  see Jude 3, 4; 1 Corinthians 1; 2; 7:1.

2.  God gave a Command to His people to read, and to inquire after the value of all other words at this Lydian stone,[6] which without the writing of the Word was not even able to be done.  Isaiah 8:20:  Here תּוֹרָה/Law and תְּעוּדָה/testimony are conjoined, as with inverted order it had also been done in verse 16, which words one may thus distinguish, that Law denotes the books of Moses, which are principally legal; and Testimony denotes the written or spoken words of the Prophets after Moses, who, not only as worthy witnesses confirmed the Law of Moses with other words of God set forth of themselves, but also made use of a various and valid attestation to the people:  in which way in the New Testament Moses and the Prophets are so often conjoined and distinguished:  consult WESSELIUS’ Fasciculum Dissertationum, Dissertation II, § 106, page 148.  Concerning these it is commanded, לְתוֹרָ֖ה וְלִתְעוּדָ֑ה, to the Law and Testimony, that is, attend ye or seek ye, consult, דִּרְשׁוּ, by comparison with verse 19,[7] or, let them attend, seek, consult.  Words are added for the commendation of this admonition, the sense of which is more doubtful and obscure, whence they are translated and explained with great variety, as it is seen in Notis marginalibus of the DUTCH ANNOTATORS; in our AUTHOR’S Exercitationibus textualibus XXIII, Part III; in VITRINGA’S Commentario in loco; in VRIEMOET’S Adnotationibus ad Dicta classica Veteris Testamenti, tome 1, chapter II, page 108-112.  אִם־לֹ֤א יֹֽאמְרוּ֙ כַּדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֵֽין־ל֖וֹ שָֽׁחַר׃, translate:  if they speak not according to this word (of the Law and Testimony), it shall be (which, omitted by ellipsis, is to be supplied in sense) because there is not going to be to him (any of them) a dawn.  Or, if they speak not according to this word, assuredly, certainly, there shall not be to him a dawn, with אֲשֶׁר taken for a particle of asservation, according to the observation of LOUIS DE DIEU[8] and SCHMIDT,[9] which Vitringa thinks is able to be admitted; Vriemoet following COCCEIUS denies it.  Or, with the verb to say repeated from the context, understand now verse 19 by ellipsis, as also it is not rare elsewhere:  When they will have said unto you, Seek ye familiar spirits, etc.:  (say ye) Shall not a people seek their own God? etc.  The Law, or to the Law and Testimony:  if they speak not according to this word, (repeat from the preceding verse, say ye) that there is not going to be to him a dawn, true light, new and immediate after darkness, both of the body and of the soul, both of wisdom and holiness and of joy and prosperity, by a comparison with 2 Peter 1:19; but the night, deep even in the day and most obscure, remains to him; or in particular, that there is going to be no part for him, whether in the happy morning of the glorious resurrection and blessed eternity, לַבֹּקֶר, in the morning, by a comparison with Psalm 49:14, or in the grace to be brought in through the Messiah, the True Light of the world,[10] whose going forth is prepared כְּשַׁחַר, as the dawn, Hosea 6:3 compared with Isaiah 9:1, 2.  Or, to the Law and to the Testimony let them have recourse, attend, and compare; if they are not going to speak, or are unwilling to speak, according to this word in which there is no dawn, that is, if in sheer darkness they refuse to remain, and they sincerely seek the true light, which is not outside of the Law and Testimony of Jehovah.  Or, to the Law, in such a manner that, as it was said, they have recourse, attend, and compare, and to the Testimony, that is, of the Prophets, if these would not speak according to this word of the familiar spirits and smatterers, in which there is no dawn, but rather that most lucid Law of God they would hold, follow, and inculcate.  Yet another conjecture is supplied by the Most Illustrious VRIEMOET, according to which שַׁחַר/dawn might be able to be rendered incantation, enchantment, from a comparison with the Arabic word of this signification, שחר, which altogether agrees with the Hebrew form שַׁחַר, if only, as it is wont to be done, you exchange שׁ/sh with שׂ/s:  and so the sense, if they speak not according to the standard of this word, which is far from enchantment:  understand, it shall be ill with them, woe to them! see VRIEMOET’S Adnotationes ad Dicta classica Veteris Testamenti, tome 1, chapter II, page 108-112, and Thesem Scripturæ DCXCIX.  Which conjecture, nevertheless, is so much less pleasing to me, since in this way, not only is the usual signification of the noun שַׁחַר destroyed, but at the same time also is destroyed the elegant opposition to dawn, bringing welcome light, against darkness, obscuring, and murkiness, which God threatens in verse 22, which phrase the Most Illustrious VITRINGA without artifice thinks includes an exposition of the threatening clause, the immediately preceding אֵֽין־ל֖וֹ שָֽׁחַר׃, there is not dawn to him.  ALBERT SCHULTENS,[11] in his Epistola altera ad Menckenium, page 76, briefly indicates his own opinion concerning the sense of this passage in these words:  “Let him hear Isaiah, Isaiah 8:20, To the Law and Testimony:  If not! they speak according to that word for which there is no Dawn:  they follow precepts and decrees, which extinguish Faith in the Word of God, henceforth never to be enlightened by any Dawn.”  John 5:39:  Ἐρευνᾶτε, search ye, is not to be taken indicatively, but rather imperatively, on account of the reason added, these Scriptures testify of me; for this the Jews generally were not believing.

By this divine Mandate to write the Word of the Lord the twofold error of the Papists falls:  of which the first is,

A.  That the Scripture was only written down by chance, and at the bare pleasure of men; which they are able to be said to urge, so that in this way the authority and perfection of the Scripture or written Word might be lessened unto the advantage of Traditions.  Bellarmine, in his Controversiis, tome 1, de Verbo Dei, book IV, chapter III, column 206, has:  “It is not true that God commanded the Apostles to write.  —God neither expressly commanded that they write, nor that they not write.  Yet we do not deny that the Apostles wrote what things they wrote with God willing and inspiring:  for it is one thing to do something with God suggesting and inspiring, another thing with Him plainly commanding.”  Add chapter IV, column 212, where there is among other things:  “Eusebius relates, in his Historia, book III, chapter XXIV, that Luke only wrote because he had seen many others rashly presume to commit those things to letters, of which they had not perfect knowledge, that is, so that he might rescue us from the uncertain narrations of others.  —From which it is gathered that the Apostles in primary intention thought, not upon writing, but upon the preaching of the Gospel.”  Charron[12] adds, “God never thought of teaching the Evangelical faith and of making Christians by the Scripture, still less by the Scripture alone,” in CHAMIER’S[13] Panstratia Catholica, tome I, de Canone, book IX, chapter VI, § 1.  But in this way, in addition to the things already said, God would not be able emphatically to claim for Himself the Writing of the Scripture, as He does in Hosea 8:12, אֶכְתּוֹב־ל֔וֹ רֻבֵּ֖י תּֽוֹרָתִ֑י, I have written to him the great things of my law.

Objection 1:  That by opportune occasions presented frequently the Holy Men were stirred up to write.  Response:  It is one thing for them to write with opportune occasions presented, it is another thing to write only occasionally and without the special direction and impulse of God.  The former we grant; the latter we deny.  The Apostles both by commandment and according to the occasion presented preached, and Men of God acted in like manner in writing the Sacred Codex.  For those two things are not to be opposed, as it is done by the Papists, but rather composed as subordinates, which are not inconsistent.  The principal impulsive cause of writing was the Command of God and the Impulse of the inspiring Spirit:  the secondary and less principal impulsive cause was often the occasion presented, of which Holy Men, led by the Spirit, knew to make use for the glory of God and the edification of the neighbor:  consult SPANHEIM’S Collegium Theologicum Heidelbergæ de Principio Theologiæ, part 3, § 3, 5, opera, tome 3, column 1192; PETRUS DINANT’S[14] de Achtbaarheid van Godts Woord, chapter III, § 42, compared with § 41, pages 469-473.

Objection 2:  That Luke wrote his Gospel by his own will, Luke 1:3, ἔδοξε κἀμοί, etc., it seemed good to me, etc.  Response:  1.  This voluntary pleasure was excited in Luke by the Holy Spirit; in like manner also Paul was proclaiming the Gospel willingly, and at the same time from a necessity incumbent upon him, 1 Corinthians 9:16, 17.  2.  And perhaps Luke himself in this passage signified this divine Impulse, writing:  ἔδοξε κἀμοί, παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς, καθεξῆς σοι γράψαι, when those words are translated, it seemed to me, having followed properly all things from above, in order to write unto thee:  and not, having pursued accurately all things from the beginning.  And certainly ἄνωθεν denotes either, and frequently must signify from above, John 3:31;[15] James 1:17;[16] 3:15,[17] 17:[18]  thus Luke relates, that he was taught from heaven all things properly, that have regard to the Evangelical history:  see GOMARUS’ Opera, part I, pages 200, 201:  consult what things STAPFER[19] conveys on this Objection, an Objection moved also by the Jews, Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 3, chapter XI, section I, § 331, 333, 334, pages 265, 266, 268-271.

Neither, 3.  is it fitting to obtrude upon the Holy Spirit a Method more Scholastic, as if more decent, with Bellarmine, Controversiis, tome 1, de Verbo Dei, book IV, chapter IV, column 212, where he has:  “Moreover, if the Apostles had desired overtly to consign their doctrine to letters, they would have composed a Catechism or similar book.  But they wrote either history, as Evangelists, or epistles on account of some occasion, etc.”  For the Spirit did not hold it to be necessary to write down a System of Theology or Catechism through His amanuenses; it is sufficient that He related those things by which all Catechisms ought to be examined:  and, if not formally, yet materially, a Theological System is comprehended in the Written Word; thence it is to be gathered by us that something remains to human industry.  It is not to be doubted that the Epistulary Method, of which the Spirit made use through the Apostles, in order to instruct the Church, was the most agreeable method of writing; both for the speedy dissemination of the Gospel; and because that method of writing, simpler and more popular, was accommodating itself to all, the learned and unlearned; and because in this way they were delivering Theology, not merely theoretical and in idea, but at the same time practical and in supposition:  consult STAPFER, refuting the cavils of the Naturalists, Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 2, chapter I, pages 1173-1175.

B.  The other error of the Papists to be noted here is that the Scripture is not necessary.  That is, so that they might suppress the authority of Scripture, and more easily establish their ἀγράφους/unwritten Traditions, and the supreme tribunal of their Pope, they are wont to speak in this way.  Bellarmine, in his Controversiis, tome 1, de Verbo Dei, book IV, chapters III, IV, tries to evince that the writing of the Word of God is indeed useful to the Church, but not necessary.  In Controversiis, tome 1, chapter III, column 206, he has:  “We say that the New Testament ought to be written principally upon the heart, and that it is not necessarily required that it be written in books.”  In chapter IV, column 209, “In the first place, we shall endeavor to demonstrate that the Scriptures without traditions were not simply necessary, nor sufficient.”  And in column 210, “Now, what Chrysostom says, that—the Scriptures—are necessary to us because of the corruption of men; is understood concerning necessity, not simply, but for well being, that is, concerning usefulness.”  But Cardinal Hosius[20] contends that it would have been better for the Church, if no Scripture had even existed, as TURRETIN[21] testifies in his Theologiæ Elencticæ, locus II, question II, § I.

As far as the Enthusiasts are concerned, at this point receding in a similar manner from the right path, consult below, § 30, 32; and SPANHEIM, in his Disputationibus Anti-Anabaptisticis, Disputationum theologicarum, part 2, XX, § 2.

But in this way they wish to appear wiser than God, and are ungrateful for the excellent care which He has undertaken for His Church.  We do not even urge the Absolute Necessity of the Scripture.  The Revealed Word of God is absolutely necessary after the Fall; as it appeared in Chapter I, § 23:  but just as He did in ante-Mosaic times, so also thereafter God, if He had willed, was able to provide for the Church without the Word Written:  and so the Necessity of the Word Written is not Absolute, nor Perpetual, but only Hypothetical, proceeding from the supposition of the divine Will.  The wisdom and propriety of this divine purpose we nevertheless readily acknowledge here.  1.  The diverse mode of teaching, which God willed to employ, first through the Word ἄγραφον/unwritten only, then ἄγραφον/unwritten and ἔγγραφον /written at the same time, finally by the ἔγγραφον/written Word alone, is agreeable to the diverse ages of the Church.  For, as infants are formed with the living voice first, then are taught by the voice of a Teacher and the Reading of books, and finally, having been removed from the care of pedagogues, of themselves take teachings from books:  so the heavenly Father established the infant Church with the living voice alone, which is the simplest mode of Revelation; then He taught it, adolescent and constituted in early youth under the Law, both with the living voice, because of the remains of the infantile age, and writing, because of the beginnings of a more robust age, unto the time of the Apostles; finally, He willed that it be kept together as adult under the Gospel, by an altogether perfect mode of Revelation, that is, by the light of the written Word.  2.  Neither is it doubtful that He composes the written Word, especially under the New Testament, when the Church is extended to peoples of every sort throughout the entire globe, both for the more powerful Perservation of the divine Word, and for its broader Propagation.  QUINTILIAN well says, “This is the Divine and marvelous benefit of letters, that they preserve sounds and, as it were, make a deposit for those absent.”[22]  At the same time the writing of the Word is serviceable both for Uniformity, and for the greater Purity of the same, with the Word not so easily to be perverted through the fraud of Satan and the cunning of heretics.  And thus the occasion is closed off for a thousand offspring of the human mind to be obtruded in the place of divine Revelations:  and doubt is removed from the faithful concerning genuineness of Revelation.

Neither ought the Utility of the γραφῆς/Scripture, asserted by Paul, be opposed to its Necessity, since, because the uses mentioned by Paul, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, are thereby to be obtained more easily, God judged it to be necessary that Revelation be written.  Respiration is useful to man, but it is no less necessary.

Now, as far as the example of the Barbarous Nations in IRENÆUS is concerned, to whom in the beginning by mere preaching the Gospel was revealed, which Objection on the letter δ our AUTHOR sets forth out of Bellarmine’s Controversiis, tome 1, de Verbo Dei, book IV, chapter IV, column 210, where he says that it sufficiently appears that the Scriptures are not simply necessary because after the coming of Christ, through many years, the Church was without the Scriptures, so that Irenæus might yet write in his own time, Against Heresies, book III, chapter IV, that there were some Christian Nations that were living very well by traditions alone without the Scripture.  The words of Irenæus, to which Bellarmine appeals, Against Heresies, book III, chapter IV, § 2, are thus:  “To which appointment many nations of barbarians assent, of those that believe upon Christ, without paper and ink having salvation written by the Spirit on their hearts, and diligently keeping the old Tradition; believing upon one God, the maker of heaven and earth, etc.  Those that have believed this faith, with respect to our speech are barbarians:  but with respect to opinion, custom, and conversation, because of faith they are extremely wise, and pleasing to God, living in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom.”  By setting forth this Objection, at the same time our AUTHOR resolves it by the interposition of the words, but nevertheless from the Scriptures:  which solution is clearer if we compare what things TURRETIN has in his Theologiæ Elencticæ, locus II, question II, § 8:  Although certain particular Churches for a time would be able to be without the written Word of God, especially when they were first being erected; nevertheless, they were not without that Word of God that was written, which undoubtedly was sounding upon their ears through the ministry of men, neither was the Church at that time in general without the Scripture.

It pertains to the altogether empty praises of Traditions above the Scriptures, of which our AUTHOR makes mention in letter ε, for instance, what Bellarmine says, in his Controversiis, tome 1, de Verbo Dei, book IV, chapter IV, column 215, comparing the words of Scripture with a sheath, and asserting that the sense enclosed in the words is the very sword of the Spirit; that the first is had by all that know letters, but concerning the second we in a great many places are not able to be certain, unless Tradition be added.  But see what things contrariwise are taught below, § 27-29, 41, 42.

[1] 2 Corinthians 11:14.

[2] Pierre-Daniel Huet (1630-1721) was a Roman Catholic churchman and a universal scholar.  He was the cofounder of the Academie du Physique in Caen.

[3] This is the significance of the name מַהֵר־שָׁלָל־חָשׁ־בַּז, Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

[4] Johann Gottlob Carpzov (1679-1767) was a Lutheran divine and Old Testament scholar.  He served at Leipzig as Professor of Theology (1713-1719), and Professor of Hebrew (1719-1730).

[5] For example, Matthew 13:14, 15; Acts 28:26, 27; Romans 11:8.

[6] A type of black stone, formerly used to test the purity of precious metals.

[7] Isaiah 8:19:  “And when they shall say unto you, Seek (דִּרְשׁוּ) unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter:  should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?”

[8] Louis de Dieu (1590-1642) was a Huguenot minister of Dutch origin, and he was a linguist and critic of extraordinary talent and judgment.

[9] Sebastian Schmidt (1617-1696) was a German Lutheran Theologian and Hebraist.  He studied under Buxtorf the Younger, and his efforts to interpret Scripture with philological accuracy influenced Philipp Jakob Spener.  He commented on much of the Scripture, including Isaiah.

[10] John 8:12; 9:5.

[11] Albert Schultens (1686-1750) was a Reformed scholar and philologist.  He served as Professor of Hebrew at Franeker (1713-1729), and Professor of Oriental Languages at Leiden (1732-1750).  In his day, he was the pre-eminent teacher of Arabic in Europe.

[12] Pierre Charron (1541-1603) was a French Roman Catholic theologian and philosopher.

[13] Daniel Chamier (1565-1621) was a Huguenot theologian.  He studied at the University of Orange and at Geneva under Theodore Beza.  After his ordination, he was installed as pastor at Montélimar.  In 1607, he established an academy at Montpellier, and served there for a time as professor, concluding his career as Professor of Theology at Montauban (1612).

[14] Petrus Dinant (1663-1724) was a Dutch Reformed pastor and theologian.

[15] John 3:31:  “He that cometh from above (ἄνωθεν) is above all:  he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth:  he that cometh from heaven is above all.”

[16] James 1:17:  “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above (ἄνωθεν), and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.”

[17] James 3:15:  “This wisdom descendeth not from above (ἄνωθεν), but is earthly, sensual, devilish.”

[18] James 3:17a:  “But the wisdom that is from above (ἄνωθεν) is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated…”

[19] John Frederick Stapfer (1708-1775) was a Swiss Reformed divine of the first order.  He served as a Pastor in the canton in Berne.  His Institutiones theologicæ, polemicæ, universæ, ordine scientifico dispositæ ranks among the best elenctic theologies.

[20] Stanislaus Hosius (1504-1579) was a Roman Catholic Cardinal, a Papal legate, and active opponent of the Reformation.

[21] Francis Turretin (1623-1687) was a Genevan Reformed theologian of Italian descent.  After studying at Geneva, Leiden, Utrecht, Paris, Saumur, and Montauban, he was appointed as the pastor of the Italian refugee congregation in Geneva (1648), and later Professor of Theology at academy (1653).  His Institutio Theologiæ Elencticæ has been heavily influential in Reformed circles, shaping Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology and Herman Bavinck’s Gereformeerde dogmatiek.

[22] Institutionum Oratoriarum Libri Duodecim 8:30, 31.  Marcus Fabius Quintilianus (42-c. 122) was a Roman rhetorician.