By means of this extract, made from the life of Thomas Ellwood, we come to three conclusions.  First, that the early Quakers were generally men of eminent learning.  Secondly, that they did not decry or depreciate human knowledge.  And thirdly, that the calumny of such a depreciation by them arose from the controversy which they thought it right to maintain, in which they denied it to be necessary as a qualification for a Gospel minister.

This latter conclusion brings me round again to the point.  And here I must observe, that, though this famous controversy occasioned the first Quakers to be unduly blamed on account of such a depreciation, yet it contributed to make some of their immediate successors, as I stated in a former volume, justly chargeable with it.  But whether this was or was not the real cause, it is not material to the question.  Many of the society, from came cause or other, did undoubtedly, in the age immediately succeeding that of their founders, begin to depreciate human knowledge, the effects of which, though gradually dissipating, have not been wholly done away at the present day.  The disadvantages, therefore, of human learning, or the arguments which would be advanced against it by those who may undervalue it, I shall now consider.

These arguments may be divided into particular and general.  On the former I shall first speak.

A classical education is considered to be objectionable, first, on account of the Heathen mythology that is necessarily connected with it.  Its tendency, as it relates to fabulous occurrences, is thought to be unfavourable, as it may lead to a romantic propensity, and a turn for fiction.  But surely the meaning of such occurrences cannot be well mistaken.  If they are represented to our view in fable, they have had their foundation in truth.  Many of them again are of such importance, that we could not wish to see them annihilated.  Let us refer, for example, to the story of Deucalion and Pyrrha.  Is it not one among the many outward confirmations of the truth of the history of Moses?  Or do we not trace in it additional proofs of the deluge, and of the renewal of mankind?

Its tendency again, as it relates to the fabulous history of the Heathen gods, their number, their offices, and their character, is considered as degrading and exceptionable.  I will concede this for a moment.  But may it not, on the other hand, be rendered instructive and useful?  May not the retention of such an history be accompanied with great moral advantages to our children?  The emperor Theodosius commanded the idol temples to be destroyed.  Instead of devoting them to the use of the Christians of those times, by which they might have been preserved to future generations, the most beautiful remains of antiquity were reduced to ruins.  But would it not have been better, if Theodosius had brought good out of evil by retaining them?  Would it not have been a high moral gratification to those who knew the fact,