CHAP.  VI.

Arguments of those of the society examined, who may depreciate human knowledge—­This depreciation did not originate with the first Quakers—­with Barclay—­Penn—­Ellwood—­but arose afterwards—­Reputed disadvantages of a classical education—­Its heathen mythology and morality—­Disadvantages of a philosophical one—­Its scepticism—­General disadvantages of human learning—­Inefficiency of all the arguments advanced.

Having shewn the advantages, which generally accompany a superior education, I shall exhibit the disadvantages which may be thought to attend it, or I shall consider those arguments, which some persons of this society, who have unfortunately depreciated human learning, though with the best intentions, might use against it, if they were to see the contents of the preceding chapter.

But, before I do this, I shall exonerate the first Quakers from the charge of such a depreciation.  These exhibited in their own persons the practicability of the union of knowledge and virtue.  While they were eminent for their learning, they were distinguished for the piety of their lives.  They were indeed the friends of both.  They did not patronize the one to the prejudice and expulsion of the other.[53]

[Footnote 53:  George Fox was certainly an exception to this as a scholar.  He was also not friendly to classical learning on account of some of the indelicate passages contained in the classical authors, which he and Farley and Stubbs, took some pains to cite, but, if these had been removed, I believe his objections would have ceased.]

Barclay, in his celebrated apology, no where condemns the propriety or usefulness of human learning, or denies it to be promotive of the temporal comforts of man.  He says that the knowledge of Latin, Greek and Hebrew, or of logic and philosophy, or of ethics, or of physics and metaphysics, is not necessary.  But not necessary for what?  Mark his own meaning.  Not necessary to make a minister of the Gospel.  But where does he say that knowledge, which he himself possessed to such a considerable extent, was not necessary, or that it did not contribute to the innocent pleasures of life?  What would have been the character of his own book, or what would have been its comparative value and usefulness, if he had not been able to quote so many authors to his purpose in their original texts, or to have detected so many classical errors, or to have introduced such apposite history, or to have drawn up his propositions with so much logical and mathematical clearness and precision, or if he had not been among the first literary characters of his day?