I must frankly confess that when I first went to Turkey I was somewhat prejudiced against the missionaries there and missionary work, to this extent: As what, I suppose, you might call a high Anglican, I looked with a certain esteem and regard upon the old churches of the East and it seemed to me theoretically that the proper method of missionary enterprise was to try to cooperate with those churches, helping them to educate and evangelize themselves. As a result of contact first with the Congregational missionaries of the A. B. C. F. M., this prejudice very speedily vanished. I found those men not only most earnest and devout Christians, but, so to speak, thoroughly Catholic and non-partisan, and I found that they had profoundly influenced for good the ancient Christian churches where they had come in contact with them and, in fact, regenerated (I think the term is not too strong) the Armenian Church. They themselves were men not only of culture and refinement and earnest religious devotion, but of broad, statesmanlike views, an unusual group.

At Constantinople I was also brought into close contact with the men and women conducting the two great colleges, Robert College at Roumelia Hissar and the Woman’s College at Scutari, and had some opportunity to estimate the value of that work and its profound influence as a civilizing agent on the community at large. Later I was brought into contact with the Syrian Protestant College at Beirut, and with the Congregational and Presbyterian missionaries through Syria, and the favorable impressions made at Constantinople were confirmed and strengthened. My travels into regions touched by American missionaries, and beyond the confines of those regions, enabled me to form an estimate of the real influence of the missionaries on the country at large. It has been enormous. One thing, especially, the missionaries have given honor everywhere to the American name, so that to be known as an American almost anywhere in Turkey, is to ensure the confidence of the people. That name is the synonym of honest and disinterested service of one’s fellow men. I wish that the name American carried in every country the meaning which American missionaries have caused it to bear in Turkey, and I may add in Bulgaria.

But I must not be too lengthy. I am apt to wax enthusiastic when I speak on this subject, and am sometimes afraid my language may seem extravagant. It is difficult to comprehend how such a relatively small body of men, with such a relatively small expenditure of money, has made so profound an impression on the life of the people of the empire as has been made by the American missionaries and the American schools and colleges. They have been the great means of uplift, both directly and also indirectly, in causing the establishment by other nations and by the Turks themselves, of schools and the like, thus diffusing still further education.

I wish I had time and space to speak further of the great needs of the people of Turkey which must be met, if at all, through missionary agencies and of the great opportunities which the field presents in spite of all hindrances and difficulties.

—Prof. John P. Peters, D. D., ScD., Explorer.

[Pg 157]

It should be stated at the outset that the purpose of the American Board in its efforts for the Armenians was not to weaken the old Gregorian Church or to proselyte from it. There was no desire to form among the Armenians an evangelical or Protestant Church. There was no purpose to form any organization among them, but simply to introduce the New Testament in the spoken tongue of the people and to assist them in working out reforms in their old Church and under their own leaders.

The first missionary sent to Constantinople by the Board was the Rev. William Goodell, transferred from Beirut by way of Malta to open a mission at the capital of the empire with a view to reaching the Armenians there. In his work of translating the Bible into Armeno-Turkish at Beirut he had been ably assisted by two prominent Armenians, one a bishop and one a learned vartabed, who had fully accepted the modern Bible and were firm believers in the necessity of reform for the Armenian Church. Dr. Goodell may be called the father of the Armenian mission and the shaper of its policy. He was a man of great intellectual ability, clear spiritual insight and practical wisdom. After familiarizing himself with the situation at Constantinople he wrote: [Pg 158]

“In almost every place individuals are found who are so far enlightened as to see and feel that their churches are abominably corrupt, and who do sincerely desire a reform. We ourselves at this place have nothing to do with the Church, its dogmas, ceremonies and superstitions, nor do we ever think of meddling with the convents, the priests, the celibacy of the clergy, etc. In fact, we stand nearly as far aloof from ecclesiastical matters as we do from political matters. We find no occasion to touch them. We direct men to their own hearts and to the Bible. Nor do we make any attempt to establish a new Church or raise up a new party. We disdain everything of the kind. We tell them frankly, ‘You have sects enough among you already, and we have no design of setting up a new one, or of pulling down your churches, or drawing away members from them in order to build up our own.’ No, let him who is a Greek be a Greek still, and him who is an Armenian be an Armenian still.”

In another place he wrote, “The less that is said and known about our operations so much the better. A great deal can be done in a silent, harmless, inoffensive way in these countries, but nothing in a storm.” Again he said, “Our kingdom is not of this world, we are building up no Church here, nor forming any ecclesiastical organization whatever.”

These utterances of Dr. Goodell, which might be greatly multiplied, are enough to show the plan he had worked out for mission operations among the Oriental churches. The attitude of the officers of the Board in Boston was in full accord with this purpose and method. In a word, the aim of missions to the Oriental churches was not to organize a separate Church but to give them the Word of God in their own spoken tongue, help them to understand its teachings, and then to cooperate with them in organizing and carrying out such measures of reform as might seem wise and practicable to their own leaders. In carrying out this plan no separate meetings were begun. The only distinct religious services carried on in Constantinople by the missionaries in all these years of beginnings were private worship in English for themselves, their [Pg 159] children, and other English speaking people in the city who chose to join them. Apart from this, their time was given to personal conversation with individuals, dwelling largely upon the interpretation of the Scriptures. Men who felt they must separate from the old Church were persuaded to remain within the Church and to work there for gradual reforms. These purposes and plans were talked over freely with the patriarch, with the priests, bishops, and leaders of the Church, and met with their hearty approval. The missionaries attended the services of the old Church upon the Sabbath and on special occasions at other times, and frequently took part, as they were invited so to do. The contemplated reforms had nothing to do with the ecclesiastical systems or ritual then dominating. There was no desire to change these. The one aim was as declared in the expression frequently used, “To build up truth.” When truth prevails error will depart.

It was plain to all, and to none more than to the Armenian leaders, that no permanent reforms could be wrought out within the Church without schools for the education of priests. It was apparent that, so long as the ministers in the churches were for the most part untaught, ignorant, and often coarse, the Church could never be lifted from its low intellectual, moral, and spiritual plane. Because of the general ignorance of so many of the clergy, the cause of education among the Armenians had everywhere gone into decadence. Fully recognizing these conditions and needs, and at the same time aware that the situation was delicate, Dr. Goodell and his associates, instead of starting mission schools, persuaded the Greeks and the Armenians to establish schools of their own, proffering missionary assistance as it might be called for. [Pg 160]

At about the time mission work began in Turkey, the system of schools organized by Joseph Lancaster of England was attracting much attention, not only in that country but in the United States. This was a monitor system requiring few trained teachers, no text-books, and seemed to command popular interest wherever tried, and undoubtedly afforded a quick and superficial exhibit of progress in the pupils. Lancasterian schools were having a period of great popularity in Greece. They spread to Constantinople and were at once adopted by Greeks, Armenians, and Turks. These had the effect of arousing the popular mind, and awaking a desire for an education. These schools were, for the most part, religious, but not sectarian. They were not long continued by either the Turks or the Greeks, but the seed of learning fell into especially fruitful soil among the Armenians.

Another influence had been operating at the capital leading towards this same end. When Jonas King left Syria he wrote a farewell letter dwelling at length upon the needs of reform in the Oriental churches, with many Scriptural references to prove his position. An Armenian bishop, Dionysius, translated this letter into Armenian, and in 1827 a manuscript copy was sent by him to some of the more influential Armenians in Constantinople. The effect of it was remarkable. A meeting was called in the Armenian Patriarchal Church at which the letter was read and the Scriptures referred to examined. By common consent it was there agreed that the Church needed reforming. The well known school of Pashtimaljian was the direct outgrowth of that meeting. It was there decided that no Armenian priest should be ordained in Constantinople who had not completed a regular course of study in that school. [Pg 161]

This school exerted a strong influence in preparing the minds of a large body of young men to receive the truth and later to become leaders in the movement towards reform. Pashtimaljian himself was an Armenian of remarkable ability and strength. He was an accurate scholar and a critical student of the Armenian language and literature, and, although a layman, was well versed in Eastern theology and Church history. He was equally accurate and thorough in his study of the Bible. His leadership was recognized by the Armenians. He was a friend of the missionaries, but for fear of exciting the suspicions of his race carried on his work independently of them. While evangelical in his beliefs and thoughts he did not, to the day of his death, in 1837, openly declare himself to be an evangelical. But up to that time there had been no break with the old Church and no persecution of those who were studying the Word of God.

In all cases where the word “Evangelical” is used in connection with the Armenians, Greeks or Syrians it refers to those who are recognized as regular readers of the New Testament in the vernacular. The “Evangelicals” among the Armenians were those who persisted in adhering to their right to read the New Testament and to follow its manifest teachings even in the face of the disapproval of their ecclesiastics. Under the fire of anathemas and persecution the word came to be applied to those who were cast out of the Gregorian Church because they would not discontinue the practise. In Turkey the word has only its original meaning, derived from the “Evangel” of Christ.

In 1833 the missionaries at Constantinople were invited to be present in the Patriarchal Church at the ordination of fifteen Armenian [Pg 162] priests, trained in Pashtimaljian’s school. These men were largely emancipated from the superstitions of the old Church and alert to the needs of radical reform. When the break between the Gregorians and the Evangelicals actually took place, several years la............