They could not know the spiritual meaning of Moses; the prophets and John’s words, nor see their paths and travels, much less see through them, and to the end of them into the kingdom, unless they had the spirit of Jesus; nor could they know the words of Christ and of his apostles without his Spirit.[35] Then we came to Durham, where was a man come from London to set up a college there, to make ministers of Christ, as they said. I went, with some others, to reason with him and to let him see that to teach men Hebrew, Greek and Latin, and the seven arts, which were all but the teachings of the natural man, was not the way to make them ministers of Christ.[36] These statements represent a small selection from many similar ones, and may be fairly taken as indicative of his position concerning this one point. They are the most drastic prohibitory statements made on the subject in all of his works. But even here we fail to find either (1) a condemnation of general or ordinary education or (2) a wholesale condemnation of classical education; indeed we read no objection to a minister’s possessing a knowledge of classical authors, such as was the case of both Penn and Barclay, provided he possess also the “light.” His statements may be summarized as follows: [Sidenote: Summary of educational statements] 1. Classical training is inadequate as a preparation for ministers of the gospel. 2. Divine guidance is the one requisite for their preparation. 3. There is no objection to the classical learning if it be added to the qualification under (2). [Sidenote: Education not limited to Friends] _Fifth_, their conception of the scope of education did not limit it to their own people alone, but extended it rather to all peoples, Negroes and Indians, the rich and the poor. This is made perfectly plain in his address sent to the Governor of the Barbados in 1671. Consider, Friends, it is no transgression for a master of a family to instruct his family himself, or for some others to do it in his behalf; but rather it is a very great duty incumbent upon them.... We declare that we esteem it a duty incumbent on us to pray with and for those in and belonging to our families; ... and to teach, instruct and admonish them; ... now Negroes, Tawnies and Indians make up a very great part of the families in this island; for whom an account will be required by him who comes to judge both quick and dead, at the great day of judgment, when every one shall be rewarded according to the deeds done in the body, whether they be good or whether they be evil.[37] The effect of the above statements must tend to convince even the skeptical that any statement or belief, to the effect that the founder of Quakerism was opposed to education, is chiefly a myth based on either ignorance or gross misunderstanding. SUMMARY