If, as must be admitted, the previous statement points out the lack of any opposition to the ordinary rudimentary education that is necessary for the everyday walks of life, the last one certainly does the same in reference to his attitude towards a higher classical education. Moreover, this is not a mere skeleton of words never clothed with the flesh of action. The principles set forth in the charter were actually incorporated in the work of the schools established in Philadelphia, and we find them maintaining a classical school for languages and higher mathematics.[83] The practical elements received the just emphasis which belonged to them; it was necessary that the boys and girls be made able to earn a living and be at least ordinarily intelligent citizens. The example of Philadelphia was followed by other communities; practical needs were given the first consideration and a higher classical education offered when it became possible. Not only were these studies, which we would term higher education, mentioned by Penn and other writers among Quakers, but they were taken up and recommended by the yearly meeting. For example, in 1737, the minutes recommend that as opportunity can be found, children should be privileged to learn “French, High and Low Dutch, Danish, etc.”[84] This particular recommendation was made by the meeting because of a felt need.[85] If then in case of a need for a particular subject, they were willing to recommend that it be taught, can it be truly said that they opposed all education? [Sidenote: Barclay’s position defined] It may be well to examine Barclay, since it is with him and his writings that Cox takes issue. In his _Apology for Christian Divinity Vindicated_ is to be found a very clear statement of his position on the subject, and he voices it as the principle of the whole society as well. He seems to be answering some critic, who has taken him to task for his educational views: [Sidenote: In his _Apology_]