If to this list of advocates of education, it is necessary to add others, mention should be made of Henry Tuke, George Whitehead, and William Crouch. In defending certain differences between the Quaker doctrine and that of other denominations, the former discusses this one, _in not considering human learning essential to a minister of the gospel_.[101] The reasons adduced are chiefly biblical; the knowledge of human literature is not recommended by the New Testament as being necessary for a minister, and this is considered conclusive proof. Moreover, it is pointed out that Paul, though a well educated man, disclaimed the value of his education for that service, and wished always to appear to the people as an unlettered man of God.[102] But Tuke goes on to explain that though it is not essential for a minister, learning is not unesteemed nor its usefulness slighted.[103] Members are desired to direct their attention to education, for a right use of it may promote religion and benefit civil society.[104] That the use of Latin and Greek is not decried may be seen in the work of Penn and Whitehead, who were both scholars, and whose works are full of classical references and illustrations. In one instance their chief argument against swearing is produced from certain references to the works of Socrates and Xenocrates, pointing out that the Greeks were aware of a higher righteousness excelling that of the legal Jews.[105] The same point of view with reference to a knowledge of the classics is taken by William Crouch, as is understood at once by this statement: They acknowledge the understanding of languages, especially of Hebrew, Greek and Latin, formerly was and still is very useful, yet they take them not therefore to be necessary to make a minister nor so profitable as that one unacquainted with them must be styled an idiot, illiterate and of no authority.[106] [Sidenote: The Latin School of Philadelphia exemplifies contention of those quoted above] [Sidenote: Education an asset; but apt to be perverted]