'■ - 1 * 
 
 
 REPLY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 MISSIONARIES AT CONSTANTINOPLE, 
 
 TO THE CHARGES OF 
 
 REV. HORATIO SOUTHGATE. 
 
Mr. Southgate and the Missionaries at Constantinople. 
 
 A 
 
 LETTER 
 
 FROM THE 
 
 MISSIONARIES AT CONSTANTINOPLE, 
 
 REPLY TO CHARGES 
 
 BY REV. HORATIO SOUTHGATE. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 PUBLISHED BY CROCKER AND BREWSTER, 
 47, Washington-slreet. 
 
 1844. 
 
.r r. 
 
 Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2020 with funding from 
 Columbia University Libraries 
 
 i 
 
 
 https://archive.org/details/mrsouthgatemissiOOgood 
 
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 
 
 The occasion of this publication will be seen from the 
 following statement. At the meeting of the American 
 Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions at Roches¬ 
 ter, N. Y., in September, 1843, allusion was made, in 
 the Annual Report, to embarrassments at Constantinople, 
 occasioned by the interference of “ individuals^ who had 
 imbibed errors which now threaten the peace and unity 
 of the Episcopal churches of England and America,” 
 with the labors and influence of the missionaries. In the 
 discussions upon the Report, inquiries were made as to 
 the nature of this interference, and the persons who were 
 the authors of it. The reply of the Secretary to whom 
 the inquiries were particularly addressed, was variously 
 reported in the religious newspapers, and gave rise to the 
 following correspondence. 
 
 Office of the Foreign Committee of the Board 
 of Missions of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church, New York, Oct. 5 , 1843. 
 
 Rev. and Dear Sir, —A copy of the New York 
 Evangelist” of the 21st September has been brought to 
 me, which contains a report of the proceedings of the 
 Thirty-^fourth Annual Meeting of the American Board, 
 
4 
 
 held at the city of Rochester; and rny attention has been 
 called to a passage in one of your own addresses, which 
 involves very serious charges against our missionary to 
 Constantinople. The passage reads thus ;—“ The Rev. 
 Horatio Southgate, missionary of the Episcopal Society 
 in this country, has co-operated with Mr. Badger in all 
 the opposition made to the missionary operations of the 
 Board, and has, as far as his influence has gone, coincid¬ 
 ed with the Papal missionaries.” 
 
 Allow me very respectfully and affectionately to in¬ 
 quire, whether this be a correct report, and if so, upon - 
 what grounds you have felt it to be your duty to bring 
 so grave an accusation. You will of course see the great 
 importance, as well to the cause of our missions, as to 
 Mr. Southgate, that this should be examined, and I can¬ 
 not doubt your readiness to impart all the information of 
 which you are possessed in regard to it. 
 
 I do not now write officially, but with the view of as¬ 
 certaining the correctness of the report, and the authority 
 upon which the charges are made, before calling the at¬ 
 tention of our Committee to the same. 
 
 « 
 
 I am, with very sincere respect and regard, yours, 
 
 Pierre P. Irving, 
 
 Secretary, 
 
 Missionary House, Boston, Oct. 7 . 1843 . 
 
 Rev. and Dear Sir, —Your letter of the 5th was re¬ 
 ceived yesterday. How far the newspaper report of my 
 remarks at Rochester concerning Mr. Southgate is cor¬ 
 rect, you will perceive by what follows. 
 
 In my remarks concerning Mr. Badger, which were 
 made in reply to a call for information with respect to his 
 
proceedings, I intimated an opinion that, in the inter¬ 
 ference with our labors at Constantinople, he was not the 
 principal agent. 
 
 Dr. T., of Maine, desired to know to what other ad¬ 
 verse influence I referred. 
 
 To this, as nearly as I can recollect, I replied, that as 
 no harm could come from the truth, I would frankly say, 
 that I referred to the Rev. Mr. Southgate, a missionary 
 from the Episcopal church of this country. Mr. South- 
 gate had unhappily adopted such views of his duty, that 
 he felt himself at liberty to co-operate with Mr. Badger 
 while Mr. B. was at Constantinople, and had acted in 
 opposition to our missionaries ; and, as we had reason to 
 believe, was the chief cause of the hostile movement 
 which had constrained Mr. Dwight to suspend, for a 
 season, his meeting for preaching, and had led Mr. 
 Hohannes (then present) to come to this country. 
 
 I was called upon unexpectedly, and made my remarks 
 as few and as brief as possible. Knowing the delicacy 
 of the subject, I took some pains to remember what I 
 said. Though 1 made repeated reference to Papal mis¬ 
 sionaries when speaking ot Mr. Badger, I do not think I 
 made any such reference when speaking of Mr. South- 
 gate. 
 
 You will perceive. Dear Sir, that mere newspaper re¬ 
 ports cannot make it proper for us, as a Missionary Soci¬ 
 ety, to go into a formal inculpation to your Society of one 
 of its missionaries, because, in the progress of our discus¬ 
 sions, it was necessary for us to say somewhat to his dis¬ 
 advantage. We regretted the necessity as much as it is 
 possible for any one to do, while we believed in its exist¬ 
 ence. 
 
 I could do no less, however, in reply to your fraternal 
 
 inquiries, than tell you frankly what I believe myself to 
 
 have said. I do it as an act of Christian courtesv, and 
 
 •/ * 
 
6 
 
 shall alwa^/s be happy to do what 1 can to avoid every¬ 
 thing like controversy with you and your respected asso¬ 
 ciates in the work of missions. 
 
 I am, Dear Sir, very respectfully and truly yours, 
 
 Rufus Anderson, 
 
 Secretary. 
 
 With this corrected statement of Dr. Anderson’s re¬ 
 marks before him, Mr. Southgate, who was then at Con¬ 
 stantinople, addressed a letter, on the 4th of December, 
 1843, to the missionaries of the American Board in that 
 
 I 
 
 city, which led to a correspondence to which there will 
 be a reference in the latter part of this pamphlet. On 
 the 9lh of January, 1844, he addressed a “Letter to 
 Members of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
 United States.” This letter was printed as a “ Vindi¬ 
 cation of the Rev. Horatio Southgate,” with two appended 
 letters, and has been extensively circulated. These let¬ 
 ters contain, besides the “ Vindication,” a series of 
 charges against the American Board and its missionaries 
 of the gravest character. 
 
 So lar as the American Board is concerned, no answer 
 has been given to these charges, except in the following 
 declaration of Dr. Anderson at the Annual Meeting at 
 Worcester, in September last. In reply to an inquiry 
 publicly made by a member, Dr. A. said;—“ I have read 
 the pamphlet of Mr. Southgate since my return from the 
 Mediterranean, and feel bound, by a regard for justice, to 
 say, that, so far as it affects the Missionaries or the Board 
 unfavorably, I believe it to be untrue throughout.” 
 In this denial of the charges the Rev. Dr. Hawes, who 
 had spent more than a month with Dr. Anderson at Con¬ 
 stantinople, fully concurred. Probably no other reply than 
 this will be thought necessary. 
 
 To the greater part of the charges against themselves, 
 
7 
 
 the missionaries have replied in a letter dated Constan¬ 
 tinople, Sept. 4, 1844. It has been thought due to them 
 to publish this communication, with extracts from letters 
 previously received. It will be seen, that it was written 
 only in reply to Mr. Southgate’s “Letter to the Members 
 of the Protestant Episcopal Church.” The Appendix, in 
 which Mr. Southgate gives his account of the causes 
 leading to the suspension of Mr. Dwight’s preaching ser¬ 
 vice, they had not received, as only “the letter” was 
 sent by the overland mail. The facts on this point had 
 been previously communicated to the Board, in two let¬ 
 ters,—one written immediately after the event occurred, 
 and the other in connection with the correspondence 
 between Mr. S. and themselves already alluded to. 
 Both of these letters, as well as the Reply, had the 
 sanction of all the missionaries residing at the station. 
 Extracts from these letters are appended to their more 
 recent communication. In compliance with the wishes 
 of the missionaries, two or three extracts are added 
 from other letters approved and sanctioned by the station. 
 
 For the facts asserted in these letters, the missionaries 
 are responsible. For the selection and arrangement of 
 them, the editor only is responsible, who is in no way 
 officially connected wdth the Board. 
 
 Boston, Nov. 1 , 1844 . 
 

 , , ' r 
 
 I 
 
 • I 
 
REPLY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 MISSIONARIES AT CONSTANTINOPLE. 
 
 Constantinople, Sept. 4, 1844. 
 
 Dear Sir: —Your letter of July 15th addressed to our station, 
 and the printed “ Vindication ” of Mr. Southgate enclosed in it, 
 were duly received. We could not, however, have replied to you, 
 as you requested, so that our answer would reach you before the 
 meeting of the Board, even if it had been possible for us to for¬ 
 ward our communication by the post next following the receipt of 
 your letter. As it is, we have made the greatest despatch con¬ 
 sistent with our other duties, and a careful examination of the 
 subject before us. 
 
 In the remarks which follow on Mr. Southgate’s pamphlet, we 
 wish you to understand that we notice only those points in which we 
 are properly concerned. We do not acknowledge the slightest re¬ 
 sponsibility in regard to the words and actions of others, whether 
 they be correspondents or reporters of newspapers, missionaries of 
 other stations, or any other class of persons ; nor is it our province 
 to explain the Reports of the Board, or any of your own declara¬ 
 tions, referred to by Mr. Southgate. Nor shall we apply to our¬ 
 selves any of those general charges, found in his ‘‘ Vindication,” of 
 ‘‘vituperation” and “abuse” cast upon him, until he distinctly 
 specifies what was done, and that we were the authors of it ; in 
 which case we shall give to those portions of his pamphlet a due 
 share of notice. You will perceive that we refer, in this letter, 
 only to the main body of the “ Vindication,” as only that, with the 
 first page of the Appendix, has yet reached us.* We cannot, of 
 
 ^ Sent by mail, overlarul. —Ed. 
 
 1 
 
6 
 
 course, now decide whether an additional communication on the 
 appendix will be called for. We have one more prefatory remark, 
 to which we beg leave to call your particular attention, and that 
 is, that there are several points in the pamphlet before us upon 
 which we should have dwelt much more at large, had we not 
 already fully written to you on these same topics ; and we would 
 here request that you will take the trouble to reperuse the docu¬ 
 ments already in your hands, that you may have the subject fully 
 before you. 
 
 With these remarks we now proceed to a notice of Mr. South¬ 
 gate’s Vindication.” 
 
 1. He represents us as being hostile to Episcopal missions, as 
 such. In proof of this, he urges, (p. 21), that we stated to 
 Dr. Robertson and himself, in a formal conference, called by our¬ 
 selves, our objection to the principle of bringing their church to 
 light, before the oriental communions. We utterly deny having 
 ever cherished or expressed any more objection to having the 
 Episcopal church brought to light before the people, than to hav¬ 
 ing the Presbyterian, Congregational, Baptist, or any other of the 
 churches into which Protestant Christians are divided. We have 
 objected and we do object to all sectarian movements among the 
 eastern Christians, and we may have said at the interview alluded 
 to with Dr. Robertson and Mr. Southgate, that in our view it is 
 exceedingly undesirable to thrust before these eastern Christians, 
 —for whose conversion from a formal to a spiritual religion we are 
 all professing to labor,—a view of the various questions of mere 
 form and ceremony, and of church order and government, which 
 divide Protestant Christians ; and that if one body of Christians 
 were thus to bring forward the peculiarities of their own church, 
 others would, as an inevitable consequence, feel obliged to bring 
 forward theirs in self-defence. The conference was not called, 
 however, for the purpose of discussing this subject, though that 
 seems to be implied by Mr. Southgate’s language ; but it was 
 called chiefly for the purpose of asking an explanation of those 
 passages in the Instructions to Dr. R. and Mr. S. referred to on 
 page 19th of the “ Vindication.” 
 
 That the missionaries of the American Board have no hostility to 
 Episcopal missionaries, as such, is sufficiently evident from the facts, 
 that different individuals among us have often been very intimately 
 associated with missionaries of the Church of England ; that we 
 have never had the slightest difficulty with any such, so long as 
 their great object has been to preach Christ and him crucified, and 
 labor for the souls of men ; and that, in some Instances, stated meet¬ 
 ings for prayer and mutual consultation have been held with such, for 
 years, without any interruption of harmony. Indeed we may appeal 
 to our earliest intercourse with Mr. Southgate himself as evidence 
 
i 
 
 on this point. He will bear us witness, that we lived with him 
 on terms of the most friendly Christian fellowship, and expressed 
 to him our entire assurance that if he carne to labor permanently 
 at Constantinople, we should have no difficulty in acting, each in 
 his proper sphere, in perfect harmony and christian love. This 
 was the true desire and purpose of our hearts ; and our confidence 
 that we should thus live with Mr. Southgate, was based upon the 
 fact that he had manifested, up to that time, no other than the most 
 catholic spirit. He had sat down to the communion table with 
 us, receiving the sacrament from our hands, and also taking part 
 with U5 in the administration of it ; he had attended public ser¬ 
 vice regularly with us on the Sabbath, sometimes preaching for 
 us, and sometimes listening to our preaching ; and often had he 
 bent the knee together with us before the throne of grace in 
 prayer, he taking his turn, in a most edifying manner, though 
 without book or stated form. In short, he seemed to make little 
 or nothing of those differences which separate evangelical Chris¬ 
 tians, and to be determined to know nothing but Jesus Christ and 
 him crucified. With persons of such a spirit we have never had 
 the shadow of a controversy, nor would it ever have occurred to 
 us to ask the question, whether such an individual was called 
 Episcopalian, Presbyterian, or by some other name. True, when 
 in a special conference, called by Mr. Southgate, before his first 
 return to America, he formally and candidly asked our opinion as 
 to the expediency of establishing an Episcopal mission to the 
 Greeks in this city, we as candidly told him that, as we had 
 already made a beginning, we felt that it would be better for the 
 cause at large that the work should, if possible, be under one 
 direction, and that we feared that, if other societies stepped in, 
 the unity of plan and labor would be destroyed, and there would 
 be danger of such a clashing of measures as would be prejudicial 
 to the work. Of this we had, unhappily, an example before us 
 at Athens, to which we referred him. At the same time, we gave 
 Mr. Southgate distinctly to understand that we did not pretend to 
 set up any claim to the sole right of laboring here, among the 
 Greeks, (for the question related to them alone), on the ground of 
 previous occupancy ; but, as he had asked of us our opinion on 
 the subject, we felt it to be our duty frankly to express it. 
 
 He then informed us that he had no doubt an Episcopal mission 
 would be established here among the Greeks, and he proposed that 
 we should relinquish the whole Greek field in Constantinople to 
 them, and write to our Society, recommending that an arrangement 
 be made between our Board and his, that our labors should be 
 confined to the Armenians, and theirs to the Greeks. This we 
 declined doing on the ground that it did not belong to us to inter¬ 
 fere with such questions, which the Boards at home must decide 
 
8 
 
 for themselves. Our objection to having the Episcopal Board 
 open a mission here, arose not from any hostility to them as Epis- 
 copalians, for we should have expressed ourselves precisely in a 
 similar manner, had the proposition come from the Presbyterian or 
 Baptist Board.* 
 
 We have stated on what pleasant terms of Christian intercourse 
 we lived with Mr. S. during his first visit to this capital. He, 
 however, returned here from America an entirely changed man. 
 We were prepared to receive him with the utmost Christian cor¬ 
 diality, and live with him on the same terms of the most perfect 
 peace as before. But we found him entirely metamorphosed by 
 his visit to America, and determined to act on the most exclusive 
 high church principles. As a man, he professed to be ready to 
 live with us on terms of civility ; but as a Christian, and especially 
 as a Christian minister, he seemed to wish to have no visible rela¬ 
 tions with us. He would not consent even to have a prayer¬ 
 meeting in common, which we formally proposed, lest it should 
 be supposed by others that he recognized us as true ministers of 
 Christ, equally with himself. We are willing to leave it with 
 candid men to decide who first changed his principles of action, 
 and took the first steps in the course that leads to alienation and 
 hostility. Of the subsequent steps of Mr. Southgate in this 
 course, we shall have occasion hereafter to speak. 
 
 2. Mr. Southgate represents us as being afraid to discuss the 
 subject of Episcopacy here on the ground ; and he says that if 
 we would oppose them fairly in the field, instead of circulating 
 calumnies at home, it would be all they could ask.” We shall 
 say nothing of the calumnies here spoken of, until we are informed 
 specifically what they are ; and as to our being afraid fairly to 
 face the subject of Episcopacy and discuss it before these eastern 
 people, we are not conscious of having ever yet been deterred by 
 any such motive. We gather from what Mr. S. says on these 
 topics, that he would be heartily glad to have us spend our time 
 in disputing with him about church government, liturgies, etc., 
 before these poor, eastern Christians, who are already crushed 
 almost to death by the enormous weight of their forms and cere¬ 
 monies, instead of preaching to them the pure Gospel of Christ; 
 that thus he might have fuller freedom to oppose us and our labors 
 here ; and that he would also wish that we might never utter a 
 word on the subject of his doings, in our communications to you, 
 lest, in some way, his conduct should be reported to the evangel¬ 
 ical portion of his own church, and the permanence of his mission 
 here be thereby endangered. But we are determined, as far as in 
 us lies, not to gratify him, in either of these particulars. We have 
 
 * See Note 1. 
 
9 
 
 uniformly endeavored to act upon the principle of avoiding as 
 much as possible, in our intercourse with the people, discussions 
 about forms and shadows, and have endeavored to lead them 
 directly to the great and saving truths of the Gospel; and, by the 
 grace of God helping us, this course we hope to continue to pur¬ 
 sue. True, Mr. Southgate’s course here has made our efforts 
 more or less “ anti-episcopal,” in spite of ourselves. He has 
 been busily employed in “ representing his church,” and in in¬ 
 forming the people that we “ are opposed to bishops, confirmation, 
 and liturgies,^’ and a very natural consequence has been, that we 
 have been called upon, an hundred times oftener than we other¬ 
 wise should have been, to explain to persons inquiring the simple 
 mode of our own church organizations, and the reasons upon which 
 it is founded. This we ordinarily do in as few words as possible, 
 and we hasten to more important matters. We confess that Mr. 
 Southgate has succeeded so far as this in making our labors anti- 
 episcopal, and this is precisely in accordance with a prediction of 
 yours in reference to another mission, quoted in the Vindication” 
 on the ninth page; but we still conscientiously adhere to our rule 
 of avoiding as much as possible all discussion on these subjects. 
 As to the other part of Mr. Southgate’s desire, we some time 
 ago gave him formal notice, by letter, that whenever he should 
 oppose or hinder us in any way, we should feel ourselves in duty 
 bound to report him to our Committee, just as we report any other 
 obstacle that is thrown in the way of our labors, from whatever 
 quarter it comes, whether it has a Turkish, Jewish, or nominally 
 Christian origin. Nor do we expect to be prevented from this, by 
 his unwillingness to be reported. 
 
 3. Mr. Southgate accuses us of making the most studied and 
 laborious efforts to conceal the fact that we are not Episcopalians, 
 and also of descending to the practice of various arts to make 
 the impression on the people that we are actually Episcopalians. 
 This charge, substantially, has before been publicly made by Mr. S., 
 and we have already furnished you with a satisfactory refutation 
 of it. It is based on the supposition that we see, as clearly as 
 Mr. Southgate seems to do, the superior advantages of Episcopal 
 missionaries for laboring among these eastern churches, over 
 Presbyterians and Congregationalists ; whereas we regard his 
 views on this subject as altogether visionary. If Episcopal mis¬ 
 sionaries are consistent Protestants^ —willing to come out before 
 these people and preach the fundamental doctrines of the Reforma¬ 
 tion, such as justification by faith alone ivithout the deeds of the 
 law, and regeneration properly explained,—they will as surely and 
 as speedily be spurned by these eastern churches as subverters of 
 the true faith, and as dangerous heretics with whom “ an intimate 
 fellowship and connection is impracticable,” as any of their Pres- 
 
10 
 
 byterian or Congregational brethren. The fact is, the subject of 
 the form of ecclesiastical government is one which has never 
 been agitated in these eastern churches, and about which they feel 
 no particular interest. True, they are Episcopalians ; and, no 
 doubt, were the question ever to come before them of changing 
 their form of government, many would be found who would strenu¬ 
 ously plead for the Episcopal system. But what we mean to 
 assert is, that we have never seen among the eastern churches any 
 disposition to agitate the question, or any such stress laid upon it 
 as by some Episcopalians in England and America. There it is 
 made, by a certain class, a test question, by which the true church 
 of Christ is to be known, but it has never yet been magnified into 
 a question of such importance in the East. In the Armenian 
 church, we have indeed been asked many times by bishops and 
 other high ecclesiastics, as to the form of government of our 
 church; but never, in a single instance, has the motive appeared 
 to be to ascertain whether we are entitled to be considered as 
 belonging to the true church of Christ or not; but merely to 
 satisfy a very natural curiosity about the institutions of a country 
 so distant and so little known as America. And when we have 
 explained to them our mode of ordination by presbyteries or coun¬ 
 cils, they have never questioned the validity of such ordination. 
 So far is Episcopacy from being the test of a true church with 
 them, that they are quite accustomed to the sight of churches 
 with bishops and confirmation and liturgies,” which, notwith¬ 
 standing, are regarded by them as in the greatest heresies. Thus 
 the Greek church regards the Armenian, and thus the Armenian 
 regards the Nestorian ; although no man who believes in the apos¬ 
 tolic succession, can deny it to either of these churches. 
 
 The fact is, that with them the tests of orthodoxy are some¬ 
 thing very different. Among themselves the great questions of 
 fellowship or non-fellowship are, “ Do you believe in the two 
 natures of Christ ? or only in one nature ? ” ‘‘ Do you use 
 
 leavened or unleavened bread in the sacrament ? ” Do you 
 make the sign of the cross with two fingers, or three, or one 
 And, in reference to representatives or missionaries from churches 
 in America,—besides the above, other questions of graver interest 
 would be asked, were any “intimate fellowship and connection” 
 proposed, such as, “ Do you acknowledge the intercession of the 
 saints ? ” “ Do you worship the Virgin ^lary ? ” “ Do you hold 
 
 to the worship of pictures and of the cross ? ” “ Do you believe 
 
 the doctrine of transubstantiation and praying for the dead ? ” 
 These are the great points in the view of oriental Christians gen¬ 
 erally, before which the question of the form of church govern¬ 
 ment dwindles away to a mere point, a thing of the least possible 
 consequence. The moment an Episcopal missionary avows him- 
 
11 
 
 sell on these and similar points as not symbolizing with these 
 eastern churches, that avowal stamps him as a Protestant; and 
 his plea of having three orders of the clergy, of having a litur¬ 
 gy ” and “ confirmation,'’ or even of keeping all the feasts and 
 fasts of the church, will not save him from their anathemas. It is 
 evident, therefore, that all Mr. Southgate’s boasted superiority 
 over non-episcopal missionaries must go for nothing, unless he 
 practises a most studied concealment of his sentiments on the 
 above and similar points. We have already stated some facts to 
 you in previous communications, to which we would again refer 
 you, which afford us painful evidence that Mr. Southgate, instead 
 of protesting against the errors of these churches, as he professes 
 to have done, has suffered himself to plead for them, and even to 
 practice them. He himself told a pious native friend of ours, that he 
 sometimes goes to the Greek church, and there makes the sign of 
 the cross, and performs the other ceremonies as the Greeks do. 
 And we have been informed more than once, by the individuals 
 themselves to whom he gave the advice, that he has instructed 
 the people to obey their bishops in every thing, even when com¬ 
 manded to how down before pictures^ and pray through the inter- 
 cession of the Virgin Mary and the saints. An Episcopal mis¬ 
 sionary, whose conscience will permit him to pursue this course, 
 may, indeed, acquire a greater influence over the bishops and 
 other ecclesiastics of these churches than a Presbyterian, and Con¬ 
 gregational missionary can expect to do, who protests against all 
 these corruptions ; but it will obviously be an influence for evil, 
 and not for good, and it can never be urged as an evidence of the 
 superior advantages of episcopal over non-episcopal missionaries 
 in laboring for the reform of these eastern communions. Our 
 views on this question have always been, substantially, as above 
 expressed, and of course we could never have had a motive to 
 adopt that course of studied concealment which Mr. S. charges 
 upon us. True, we have ever avoided introducing questions of 
 mere form ; yet we have, from the very beginning of our inter¬ 
 course with eastern Christians, always most cheerfully explained 
 the manner in which our churches are organized, whenever we 
 have been inquired of on the subject, and this has happened 
 probably some hundreds of times. 
 
 We recollect distinctly, that on one occasion, when a conference 
 was held between Dr. Robertson and Mr. Southgate and our¬ 
 selves, the former expressed himself as entirely incredulous in 
 regard to an assertion of ours, that we do not labor to propagate 
 our opinions on the mode of church government among this 
 people, and Mr. Southgate seemed fully to sympathize with him 
 in his doubts on this point. But now Mr. S. comes out before 
 the public in America, and declares that we have always studiously 
 
12 
 
 endeavored to conceal the fact that we are not Episcopalians ! 
 Does he really believe his own statements on this subject, or has 
 this story been invented merely to help him out in his Vindication ? ” 
 But we have still greater difficulty in explaining satisfactorily 
 some subsequent representations of Mr. S., without impeaching 
 his honesty of purpose and his regard to justice and to truth. On 
 the twenty-fourth page of his “ Vindication,” he remarks that 
 “ it is a misfortune for Congregationalists to be here.” It may be 
 a misfortune to him and his sectarian plans that we are here; 
 but we believe it to be a rich blessing to the people, and we can 
 never cease to praise God for having brought us here in his good 
 providence, and for having blessed, in so distinguished a manner, 
 labors so unworthy. He then proceeds to say that he believes 
 all of us would heartily concur in the sentiment once expressed 
 to him by one of our most useful missionaries, namely, ‘ 1 have 
 often ivished that I were an Episcopalian. I could labor to much 
 greater advantage, if I were one.^ ” Who this missionary was 
 he does not inform us, and of course we cannot, as we would like 
 to do, by inquiring of the individual ascertain whether or not 
 Mr. Southgate had not misunderstood his meaning. But Mr. S. 
 declares that he believes “ all of us would heartily concur in this 
 sentiment.” We ought not, perhaps, to hold Mr. S. as strictly 
 responsible for all that his words imply in this case. He was 
 writing under a degree of excitement, in which he might very 
 naturally be betrayed into the use of expressions not strictly 
 accordant with soberness and truth. But we would like to appeal 
 to him now, in his cool moments, and ask him if he really believes 
 his own assertion ? We cannot think that he does. He knows 
 us too well to be so deceived in regard to our true sentiments. 
 And besides, he must, when soberly reflecting on the subject, per¬ 
 ceive that if we all were heartily ” wishing that we were 
 Episcopalians f and if we conscientiously believed that we could 
 labor to much greater advantage if we weref it certainly would 
 happen that some of us at least, not to say all, would imitate his 
 example, and leaving our own churches would speedily find our 
 way into the Episcopal fold. We suppose that we should be as 
 readily received as he was, and what should hinder us from going, 
 if we are all heartily ” wishing it ? And what prevented the 
 individual to wdiom he alludes from becoming an Episcopalian, if 
 that was the true desire of his heart ? 
 
 In this connection we cannot resist the temptation to insert the 
 testimony of one of the most distinguished of the English Epis¬ 
 copal missionaries ever sent to these countries. He once remarked 
 to one of our number that he rejoiced, and acknowledged the good 
 providence of God in it, that the missionaries from America to 
 these dead churches, were not Episcopal. “ You,” said he, “ 
 
 are 
 
13 
 
 as free as air. You stand upon the Bible alone ; but we are fet¬ 
 tered by canons and rules, and have a great many other things to 
 think of besides the Bible.” It is, indeed, very sad when a mis¬ 
 sionary in these countries is obliged to represent ‘‘ My church ; ” 
 when he feels bound, whatever else he may neglect, not to neglect 
 
 My church.’’ Why ! the poor, perishing people of these coun¬ 
 tries have done nothing for ages, but extol, each in his own dia¬ 
 lect, “ My church.” And is it not high time that somebody 
 should come here, and, for once, turn away their thoughts from this 
 everlasting figment of ‘‘'My church 1” Is it not high time that 
 they should at length begin to think whether Christ himself has 
 not a church somewhere in the world, to which it would be a great 
 privilege to belong? 
 
 But we have not yet done with Mr. Southgate’s vindication. 
 There are still graver charges, under the head of concealment, 
 which we are called upon to notice. He says (p. 24), that we 
 have “ so far concealed our real character, that in this city, where 
 ^ our mission has been established some thirteen years, the impression 
 
 STILL PREVAILS GENERALLY, AMONG THE ARMENIANS, THAT THE 
 
 Congregational missionaries are clergymen of the English 
 
 CHURCH, AND I AM WELL ASSURED, THAT TILL WITHIN TWO OR 
 THREE YEARS, THEY WERE ALL SUPPOSED TO BE BiSHOPS. ThE 
 impression has been strengthened by THEIR ADOPTING OUR 
 CLERICAL DRESS, USING THE PRAYER-BOOK, MAKING THE SIGN OF 
 THE CROSS IN BAPTISM, AND OTHER SUCH LIKE PRACTICES, UN¬ 
 KNOWN TO CONGREGATIONALISTS AT HOME.” 
 
 Here is a most serious accusation, deeply affecting our character 
 as Christians, and honest men ; which, if true, ought to banish 
 us at once from the missionary field, and disgrace us forever. It 
 amounts to nothing less than this, that, for a long course of years, 
 we have studiously endeavored, by various deceptive arts, to make 
 and strengthen the impression, that we are clergymen of the Eng¬ 
 lish church. And it is subsequently represented that the secret of 
 all our dislike to the system of the Episcopal missionaries in this 
 country is, that by their coming here, and representing their 
 church, our fraud has been detected, and our true characters 
 made known. It is evident that Mr. Southgate intended the sen¬ 
 tence above quoted as the clinching argument of his book, and 
 he has made it prominent by staring capitals, so as to make the 
 greatest possible impression on the minds of his readers. And he 
 well knew that those for whose special perusal he wrote these 
 pages, could generally have no other means of understanding or 
 explaining his representations, than what is furnished in his own 
 book. He therefore wished them to believe that we habitually 
 wear the episcopal clerical dress in performing religious services, 
 and use the prayer-book, and make the sign of the cross in bap- 
 
 2 
 
14 
 
 tism, and perform other such like practices,for the distinct 
 purpose of making the impression on the Armenians that we 
 belong to the English church. The whole force of his charge 
 against us depends upon the two lacts that we do these things 
 habitually, and with special reference to the jlrmenians. If it 
 could be shown that ordinarily we appear before the people, in 
 conducting religious services, without any clerical dress, and that 
 only now and then, usually at long intervals, we are seen with 
 the black gown, this would make it sufficiently evident that our 
 object was not to deceive the people, by the use of the episcopal 
 robes, into a belief that we are Episcopalians, for then we should 
 take good care never to appear without such robes, whenever it 
 was canonical to wear them. And if it could be shown that, in 
 our ordinary Sabbath services, no prayer-book is ever seen, but 
 that, on certain other occasions, sometimes a few prayers have 
 been read, by individuals among us, from that book, this would be 
 satisfactory evidence that,—whatever else our motive might be,— 
 in this occasional and partial use of the episcopal liturgy, it cer¬ 
 tainly was not to make the impression that we are ourselves Epis¬ 
 copalians. And especially, if it could be shown that never, in any 
 single instance, in our ministrations to the Armenians, (upon whom 
 especially, it is said, we wished to make this impression), have we 
 used either the clerical robes, the prayer-book, the sign of the 
 cross, or any other such like practices of Episcopacy, we think 
 it must appear transparently evident to all, that the charge in 
 question must have originated in some other desire than that of 
 honestly stating “ the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
 truth.” And this is precisely the state of the case. The adop¬ 
 tion by us of the episcopal forms alluded to, has been only occa¬ 
 sional and exceedingly rare, and absolutely never in any Armenian 
 service ; and we are sure that no reasonable man, when made 
 acquainted with the facts, can possibly understand how Mr. South- 
 gate could have framed such a charge against us, as he has, unless 
 it was to build himself up in a false position, or for some other 
 equally unworthy purpose. As to the use of the black gown, we 
 would in the first place say, that we have heard for the first time, 
 through Mr. Southgate’s pamphlet, that it is the exclusive preroga¬ 
 tive of episcopal clergymen to wear this dress, in performing reli¬ 
 gious services. We suppose Mr. Southgate knows, that your 
 missionaries in Turkey, belong to four or five different denomina¬ 
 tions of Christians, although he pertinaciously calls us all Congre- 
 gationalists ; and he ought also to know, that, in at least one of 
 these,* the black gown is as constantly and universally worn as it 
 is in the episcopal church, and in each of the others it is occasion¬ 
 ally worn, even to the very ‘‘Congregationalists.” We confess. 
 
 * The Lutheran. —Ed. 
 
15 
 
 that, as a station, we do possess a black clerical dress, but it is a 
 IjUtheran gown ; and one of our episcopal brethren, ivho once 
 wished to borrow it, refused to ivear it, when he saw it, because 
 of its uncanonical appearance! He decided at once, that it was 
 wholly Lutheran in its cut,^’ and would not do for an Episco¬ 
 palian. Tiiis gown we never use except on funeral, sometimes 
 on niarriage, and more rarely on baptismal,'[occasions. It has often 
 been said by the people of this country, that the English and 
 Americans have no religion ; and as one evidence of this it is 
 remarked, that when any one dies among them, he is buried like a 
 dog, no clergyman being supposed to be present when no clerical 
 dress is seen. This led us to adopt the general rule, that when¬ 
 ever we are called upon to attend the funeral of a Frank, whether 
 American or of other nation, we will wear the clerical gown. In 
 regard to other services, we are surrounded by people of many 
 nations, many of whom are Protestants, such as English, Scotch, 
 Germans, Danes, Swedes, &c., and as they are almost universally 
 accustomed to see the gown worn by their clergymen, and some¬ 
 times have strong feelings on the subject, we ordinarily conform to 
 their wishes in our ministrations among them. Who but a man in 
 Mr. Southgate’s peculiar state of mind, would ever think of charg¬ 
 ing us with attempting to pass ourselves off as Episcopalians, 
 among the Armenians, in acting as we have done on this subject 
 among the Franks ? 
 
 In regard to baptism, we have sometimes been requested, in the 
 absence of an episcopal clergyman, to administer the rite to the 
 children of persons belonging to the English church, whose predi¬ 
 lections were, very naturally, in favor of their own forms ; and in 
 consideration of their wishes, we have sometimes used the form of 
 baptism prescribed in the prayer-book, every objectionable pas¬ 
 sage being conscientiously omitted, agreeably to the judgment of 
 the one officiating ; and if the sign of the cross has been made, 
 according to this form, it has been rarely done, and out of regard 
 to the preference of the parents. Multitudes of Armenians have 
 been present when we have administered this ordinance, as we are 
 accustomed to do, in our own simple way, without any prayer- 
 book ; and on one such occasion, as many as fifty were present ; 
 which is a sufficient refutation of the assertion of Mr. Southgate, 
 that our object in using the prayer-book is to make the impression 
 on this class of persons, that we are Episcopalians. We feel fully 
 confident that not one Armenian In a hundred, and probably not 
 one in a thousand, is aware that we ever use any of the episcopal 
 forms of prayer on any occasion, while it is generally known that 
 our habit is, to pray extemporaneously.* Our use of the prayer- 
 
 * It is now nearly thirteen years ago that a friend of ours had a conversation about 
 us, with a distinguished bishop of the Armenian church who has since been Patriarch. 
 
16 
 
 book, as will appear from what has been said, has been merely 
 occasional, and always in a spirit of accommodation to the feel¬ 
 ings of our English episcopal friends ; and if Mr. Southgate him¬ 
 self had asked us to baptize one of his children, we should cer¬ 
 tainly, out of regard to his feelings, have used the episcopal form, 
 with the same exceptions as above mentioned ; though we should 
 not have expected, that he would in consequence go home and 
 report us as having used this form as a trick to deceive the Ar¬ 
 menians into a belief that we are Episcopalians. On this point 
 we would also add, that in this city of so much bigotry and super¬ 
 stition, where scarcely one can be found who would vary, in the 
 least degree, from his own forms, to accommodate the feelings of 
 others, we rejoice that we have had an opportunity of showing a 
 different spirit. By conforming to all forms, so far as we inno¬ 
 cently could, we have poured absolute contempt upon all formal 
 religions. By being ready, in accommodation to the great weak¬ 
 ness of men, to use, on special occasions, an Episcopal gown, a 
 Lutheran one, a French one, or none at all ; to use also occa¬ 
 sionally an Episcopal liturgy, a French one, a Lutheran one, or 
 none at all,—we have shown that we are immeasurably exalted 
 above all the littleness of mere form and ceremony, and of that 
 which is only external, and have exhibited a spirit of tolerance, 
 which was not previously supposed here to have any existence 
 on the earth. And this spirit of toleration we could have exhib¬ 
 ited in no other way. For had we been as uncompromising and 
 unaccommodating in regard to our simplicity of forms, as others 
 are in regard to their exuberance, it would have been lowering 
 ourselves down to the same level of exclusiveness and bigotry 
 with all the rest. No difference whatever could have been seen 
 between us and them. We should have been universally regarded 
 as being as blindly and bigotedly attached to our own simplicity, 
 as others are to their abundance ; nor would it have been in our 
 power to correct such an impression. But now, being free from 
 all, we have made ourselves the servants of all, that we might gain 
 the more.” As to the perfectly simple and “congregational” 
 form of our public services for the Armenians, Mr. Southgate 
 bears the most explicit testimony, when he inadvertently admits, 
 on the first page of his appendix, that these “ services consist 
 mainly in extemporaneous prayer and a sermon ; or, in other 
 words, they were congregational services in the Armenian lan¬ 
 guage.” How completely does this remarkable admission nullify 
 
 We were then little known here, and the bishop made many inquiries about our relig*- 
 ious forms and customs. Among other things he asked how we perform our prayers. 
 Our friend replied that we never use a book, but pray “ directly from our hearts,”— 
 meaning that we compose our own prayers as we go along. The bishop expressed 
 some wonder that we were able to do this, but added, “ They do just as the Apostles 
 did. They.^ also, prayed in this manner.” 
 
17 
 
 all his previous assertions in regard to our studied attempts, by 
 the adoption of episcopal forms, to pass ourselves off as Episco¬ 
 palians upon the Armenians ! What now becomes of his staring 
 capitals, and indeed of the whole edge and point of his pamphlet ? 
 And what other theory will he now invent to account for what he 
 calls our hostility to episcopal missions ? What a notable illus¬ 
 tration have we here, of the difficulty of harmonizing facts with 
 false theories, and of framing a consistent story out of any thing 
 but truth! 
 
 Mr. Southgate represents us as adopting the episcopal clerical 
 dress, using the prayer-hooTc, making the sign'of the cross in bap¬ 
 tism, and other such like practices, unknown to Congrega- 
 tionalists at home. To each of his specific charges we have given 
 a specific answer, but what can he expect us to say in reference 
 to a perfectly indefinite accusation, that we are guilty of “ other 
 SUCH LIKE PRACTICES unknoivn to Congregationalists at home 1” 
 We have this to say, that if Mr. S. had any thing in his mind 
 when he penned that expression, why did he not state it explic¬ 
 itly ? If he had had any other thing upon which he could have 
 seized, we do not doubt he would have mentioned it by name ; 
 and from the fact that he did not mention it, may it not be fairly 
 concluded that he actually knew of no other such like prac¬ 
 tices^^ to charge upon us ? For what reason then did he insert 
 this passage unless it was for the purpose of adding weight to the 
 odium to be cast upon us ? Reasonable men will not expect us 
 to answer such wholesale charges, nor will they receive any addi¬ 
 tional impressions therefrom in favor of the justice, truth, and 
 honesty of this ‘‘ vindication ” of his. We have a few remarks to 
 make in regard to the assertion of Mr. Southgate, that “ the impres¬ 
 sion still 'prevails among the Armenians generally, that the Con¬ 
 gregational missionaries are clergymen of the English church, 
 notwithstanding our mission has been established here some thir¬ 
 teen years.^^ It is evident that Mr. S. means that his readers 
 shall understand either that we originated this impression, or that 
 we have labored to perpetuate it, or both ; and that the impres¬ 
 sion of which he speaks is definitely this,—that we are Episcopa¬ 
 lians. We have already adduced facts sufficient to show that we 
 could not be responsible for any such impression, even if it did 
 exist, as Mr. S. represents. But that it does not exist, we think 
 we can make plainly to appear. It is a fact, and upon this Mr. 
 Southgate seems to have based his assertion, that among the 
 great mass of the people in Turkey, English and American have 
 been considered as one, and all have been called alike Ingliz, or 
 English. And, among the Christians of this country, the appel¬ 
 lation of Ingliz (English) has been indiscriminately applied to all 
 Protestants of whatever nation, probably because the English 
 
18 
 
 were the first Protestants with whom they became acquainted, 
 and the most prominent. Thus the name became a generic one, 
 and was used as a distinctive title of the Protestant faith. As a 
 matter of course, when we arrived in this country we were called 
 Ingliz by Greeks and Armenians ; and to this day, many (though 
 not so many as Mr. S. represents) still continue to apply to us 
 this appellation, meaning by it that we are Protestants in our re¬ 
 ligion. In using this word, however, they have no reference what¬ 
 ever to the form of church government among us, and they no 
 more mean to imply that we belong to the episcopal church 
 when they apply the name to us, than they do that Mr. South- 
 gate belongs to the presbyterian church, when they apply the 
 name to him. There are some other appellations which, with 
 these persons to whom Mr. Southgate alludes, are considered as 
 perfectly synonymous with Ingliz, or English, viz. Lutran (Lu¬ 
 theran), Framason (Freemason), and Volter (a follower of Vol¬ 
 taire) ; and these terms are applied as well to Episcopalians, as to 
 Congregationalists and Presbyterians. We may therefore say 
 with truth, that just so far as the impression prevails that we are 
 clergymen of the English church, just so far does the impression 
 prevail that Mr. Southgate is a member of the Lutheran church, 
 and this he cannot deny. And in either case, not a thought is 
 expended by the people upon the question as to what form of 
 church government we respectively adopt. Mr. Southgate has 
 therefore seized hold of a word, which the ignorant people around 
 us use in a wrong sense, and, applying it to a meaning which it 
 never has in their minds, has attempted, by this means, to make 
 out his case. Such expedients, however, are not needed in a 
 good cause, and can never be resorted to without exciting the sus¬ 
 picion of dishonest intent. 
 
 In concluding our remarks on the charge of concealment, we 
 would say in general, that our position is, as it has ever been, 
 open to all the world. The Instructions we received were pub¬ 
 licly given, and are to be found in the published documents of 
 the Board. To these Instructions we have ever endeavored faith¬ 
 fully to adhere. Our main object has ever been to preach the 
 fundamental truths of the Gospel, and to avoid, as much as possi¬ 
 ble, calling attention to those minor points which unhappily sepa¬ 
 rate Protestant Christians. 
 
 (4.) Mr. Southgate, throughout his pamphlet, claims it as an 
 object of the Episcopal mission to Constantinople, to represent the 
 Ppiscopal church of America, to the Oriental churches. In ex¬ 
 plaining his views of this important branch of his labors here, he 
 virtually concedes all that we have ever reported to you concern¬ 
 ing his interference with our operations. The substance of what 
 we have written to you of him is, that he has so represented us to 
 
19 
 
 the Armenian people, as to injure, if possible, our influence and 
 our work. Let us hear what he himself says on this point. The 
 presiding bishop of the Episcopal church of the United Slates had 
 said in his Instructions to Mr. Southgate, You may further state 
 to them [the bishops and ecclesiastical authorities of the Eastern 
 churches,] that many of those called Protestants, have rejected, 
 and are still so opposed to episcopacy and confirmation and the 
 use of liturgies, that an intimate fellowship and connection with 
 them is at present impracticable.” We cannot avoid remarking 
 here, in passing, on the exalted place here given to mere external 
 organization and form. If two churches happen to be alike in the 
 three particulars here mentioned, that is, as to episcopacy, con¬ 
 firmation, and liturgies,” it is implied that a most intimate fel¬ 
 lowship and connection ” may be established between them, with¬ 
 out regard to fundamental points of doctrine and practice. Thus 
 the Protestant Episcopal church of America may form an intimate 
 fellowship and connection with the Greek church, because the 
 latter holds equally with the former to “episcopacy, confirmation, 
 and the use of liturgies,”—notwithstanding the Greek church is 
 full of the grossest error and idolatry. And this same Greek 
 church must be warned against any intimate “ fellowship and con¬ 
 nection ” with missionaries of purely evangelical sentiments, and 
 who might perhaps be the means of reclaiming them from their 
 errors, and making them acquainted with all that is essential to 
 salvation in the Gospel, merely because those missionaries have 
 not the external forms of episcopacy, confirmation, and a prayer- 
 book I Is this the divine way, or is it merely himan invention 1 
 In regard to these Instructions of the bishop, we have to say, 
 that when they were first printed in the official publication of the 
 Episcopal Board, we stated formally to Messrs. Robertson and 
 Southgate our dissatisfaction with the passage above quoted. 
 They replied, in substance, that we must not understand the 
 bishop to mean all that his words literally imply ; that he was an 
 old man and not much acquainted with the business of giving in¬ 
 struction to missionaries, etc. And we are ready most freely to 
 acknowledge that w'e do not believe the late Bishop Griswold, 
 wdiose excellencies w^e well knew, and whose memory we revere, 
 ever could have penned that passage with a full knowledge of its 
 true import. But it matters not, so far as the question between 
 us and Mr. Southgate is concerned, whether he wrote, or even 
 ever saw these Instructions or not. As they are placed over the 
 name of Bishop Griswold, before the public, we must call them 
 his. Mr. Southgate did not attempt to justify the expression re¬ 
 ferred to, when we first made known to him our dissatisfaction 
 with it; but now% he is ready to endorse every word of it, even 
 when understood in its most obvious and literal sense. He asks 
 
20 
 
 in regard to it, in his ‘‘ Vindication,” (p. 19,) ‘‘But is not this a 
 plain matter of fact ? And are the American Board and its sup¬ 
 porters * * * ashamed or afraid to have it known of themselves ? 
 I am not allowed hy this passage to oppose, or speak evil of them, 
 but merely to state a plain fact, bearing upon Christian commun¬ 
 ion and fellowship.” We reply that it is a plain matter of fact, 
 which we are neither “ ashamed or afraid to have known,” that 
 we are not Episcopalians, and do not use liturgies; but does Mr, 
 Southgate really expect us quietly to assent to the right of his 
 bishops to instruct him, and to his right to obey their instructions, 
 to come out here and state to the people among whom we have 
 already a successful mission established, that in consequence of 
 our non-episcopal character, “ an intimate fellowship and connec¬ 
 tion with us is impracticable ?” And suppose his bishops were to 
 send forth scores of other missionaries, in different directions,— 
 some to Syria, some to the Sandwich Islands, some to Ceylon, 
 some to Bombay, some to Siam ; and, in short, some to each peo¬ 
 ple on the face of the earth, among whom the American Board 
 has amission already established,—and to instruct their missionaries, 
 in like manner, to say to the people every where, that those whom 
 they have hitherto receiv^ed as their spiritual teachers, have no 
 bishops or liturgies, and not being ordained, are not authorized 
 teachers of the Christian religion, and that, therefore, “ an intimate 
 fellowship and connection with them is impracticable ;” should 
 we be bound quietly to submit to all this, and not open our 
 mouths at all ? Now it would be only a very slight extension of 
 the principles of the bishop’s Instructions, on which Mr. South- 
 gate acknowledges that he has been acting in the East, to put in 
 motion all this machinery for the suppression of non-episcopal 
 missions throughout the world. 
 
 In order to understand this subject more clearly, let us suppose 
 a case in which Mr. Southgate, in obedience to his Instructions, 
 states his plain fact^ hearing upon Christian communion and fel- 
 lowshipf (p. 19.) Let us suppose that, on his arrival here, the 
 second time, from America, he called on the Armenian patriarch, 
 and when a favorable opportunity offered, he said in regard to us ; 
 “ Those men use no liturgies and have no bishops, and conse¬ 
 quently an intimate fellowship and connection between you and 
 them is impracticable.” And suppose he had gone ftom the pa¬ 
 triarch’s room to that of his vicar, and repeated substantially the 
 same thing. And suppose that, subsequently, as good opportuni¬ 
 ties offered, he were to repeat the same to other bishops and var- 
 tabeds residing at the capital. And suppose that he were to 
 state the same “ fact,” from time to time, to intelligent and influ¬ 
 ential laymen, and even to some who were decidedly friendly to 
 us. Would all this, or would it not, be an interference with our 
 
21 
 
 labors ? And furthermore, it is evident that the Instructions given 
 by boards and bishops to their missionaries, have some object; 
 tliey imply something to be done, some end to be attained. And 
 Mr. Southgate, in thus throwing out a word here and another 
 there, in regard to the “impracticability” of “any intimate fel¬ 
 lowship and connection” between Armenians and “congregation¬ 
 al missionaries,” would not expect his words to be ‘ like water 
 spilled upon the ground.’ And suppose he should hear, that in 
 consequence of his representations of us, one man who had so far 
 brought himself into “fellowship” with us as to place a boy in 
 our seminary, had removed him ; and not only so, but was exert¬ 
 ing his influence upon other parents to persuade them to remove 
 their children also. And suppose that another, who for years had 
 attended the preaching of the gospel in one of our houses, 
 alarmed by Mr. Southgate’s representations in regard to our hav¬ 
 ing no bishops to ordain us, were not only to absent himself, but 
 also make the most vigorous efforts to break up the meeting en¬ 
 tirely, and even to banish us all from the country. Is this any 
 thing more than Mr. S. would expect as the natural result of his 
 labors in spreading “ the plain fact he speaks of, bearing upon 
 Christian communion and fellowship ?” And is it not plain that 
 Mr. S., in acknowledging that he conscientiously acts according 
 to the Instructions he has received, does in fact confess that he 
 has done or may do all that is above supposed ? And this, not¬ 
 withstanding he elsewhere in his pamphlet declares that he has 
 repeatedly told the Armenians that “ his business here is not to 
 oppose us,” (p. 23,) and notwithstanding his strange assertion 
 that “ his rule has been non-interference.^’ (Ibid.) That he can 
 obey the bishop’s Instructions, which he confesses that he does, 
 and, at the same time, not interfere with our labors, we regard as 
 an utter impossibility.* Now, what we have reported to you in 
 former communications, in regard to Mr. Southgate, is not that 
 he has opposed us 'personally, but that his church principles have 
 led him, in various instances,! interfere with our labors, and 
 this we believe he has now, virtually though unintentionally, ac¬ 
 knowledged in his “Vindication.” We have one remark more to 
 make under this head, which is, that if we were to go to any place 
 
 * Mr. S. asserts, in his “Vindication,” that diirins; the tv.'o weeks of his residence v:ith 
 the Syrian patriarch, he does not think that he made any use of these Instructions to 
 our prejudice. Pray why should he make this assertion merely in reference to his two 
 weeks residence with the Syrian patriarch, among whose people there were no mis¬ 
 sionaries of the Board, and say not a word in regard to the manner in which he has 
 used these Instructions during the years of his residence near the seat of the Armenian 
 and Greek patriarchs, among whose flocks we have during all this time been carrying 
 on missionary operations ? 
 t See Note II 
 
 3 
 
where they had a flourishing mission, and make it a special object 
 to set forth the excellencies of our church before the people, ex¬ 
 plaining to them how much more simple and scriptural are its 
 forms than the episcopal ; and especially were we to add, that, 
 as the episcopal missionaries are opposed to our simple forms, 
 therefore it is not advisable to come into any close terms of inti¬ 
 macy with them ; would Mr. Southgate think that we were doing 
 the thing that was perfectly proper, and of which no living be¬ 
 ing would have the right to complain ? 
 
 (5.) Mr. Southgate boasts (though if we are to believe him, 
 it is without any boasting disposition,) “ that the tivo or three 
 episcopal missions in this country have done more, within the last 
 two years, to counteract the designs of the papists, and to recover 
 those who were ensnared by their delusions, than the eight or ten 
 congregational missions have accomplished during the twenty 
 years of their existence.” (p. 15.) We fear that, notwithstand¬ 
 ing Mr. Southgate’s declaration to the contrary, many of his read¬ 
 ers will believe that this sentence was dictated by nothing else 
 than a spirit of boasting ; and especially those who have been in 
 the habit of reading his published communications ; for they will 
 there have seen very many exhibitions of the same spirit. He 
 has before spoken repeatedly of congregational missionaries, al¬ 
 though he ought to be aware that it is a misrepresentation of facts 
 to call the missionaries of the Board indiscriminately by that name. 
 He now speaks of ‘‘ the eight or ten congregational missions ” in 
 this country, when he ought to have known that there is not even 
 one congregational mission here. We will let this pass, however, 
 and proceed to a consideration of his boasted fact, that two or 
 three episcopal missions have done, in two years, towards coun¬ 
 teracting papacy, what eight or ten missions of the American 
 Board (for so we und('rstand his meaning) could not effect in 
 twenty years ! And he accounts for this supposed fact on the 
 theory that we can only act on individuals, and can never expect 
 to move whole communities ; but that episcopal missionaries, 
 while they have “ far greater advantages for acting upon individ¬ 
 uals, have also the power of acting upon masses.” (p. 16.) It is 
 true this last assertion is made primarily in reference to the Pa¬ 
 pists, but he immediately after claims “ the same advantages and 
 the same power” for his own church. This reference to the su¬ 
 perior power of xho-payal church over us, in acting on masses in 
 the East, satisfactorily explains the whole philosophy of his theory 
 in regard to the superiority of his own church in this respect. 
 The Papists have ever adopted it as a principle, in laboring for 
 the conversion of the Oriental churches, that, if the patriarchs and 
 bishops can be converted, the people are of course secured. 
 Hence they have ever directed their strongest efforts to the clergy. 
 
23 
 
 Every artifice, however unchristian and wicked, has been resorted 
 to, and every motive however low and worldly has been presented 
 to uro-e them to swear alleii-iance to Rome. In their view the 
 
 o o 
 
 people are like so many dumb sheep that know nothing, and to 
 entice them into their I’old, nothing more is necessary than to se¬ 
 cure their shepherds—the bishops and priests. Repeated in¬ 
 stances, however, can be referred to, to show that, notwithstand¬ 
 ing the extreme degradation of the common people generally in 
 this country, still they are men and not brutes ; and they do not 
 always confidingly follow wherever their spiritual guides may 
 choose to lead them. Bishops and patriarchs even have been 
 brought over to Rome, while the mass of the people have reso¬ 
 lutely refused to go. The Catholicos himself of the whole Arme¬ 
 nian church once took the oath of allegiance to the Roman pon¬ 
 tiff, but to this day the great mass of Armenians adhere to their 
 own mother church. Mr. Southgate has evidently caught the 
 spirit of the papal propagandists, so far as this theory is concerned. 
 He also represents an episcopal church, and can therefore ope¬ 
 rate upon bishops and ijatriarchs, as we poor Presbyterians and 
 Congregationalists cannot do. And if he can persuade bishops 
 and patriarchs, the people will be persuaded as a matter of course. 
 Herein consists his boasted advantage over us, and his power of 
 moving masses as well as individuals. For ourselves, we are con¬ 
 tent to have only that power, in kind and degree, to act upon 
 communities and nations, which the simple preaching of the gos¬ 
 pel gives us, when attended by the Divine Spirit;—that power 
 which the apostles and early preachers of Christianity had, who, 
 in spite of the opposition and anathemas of the existing hierarchies, 
 were the instruments, under God, of shaking the whole Roman 
 empire to its very foundations. 
 
 And now as to the fact stated by Mr. Southgate, as to what 
 episcopal missions have done in this country against Papists with¬ 
 in two years past; we believe that we can clearly show that what 
 he asserts on this subject is a perfectly groundless boast. The 
 principal movement of any episcopal missionaries in these parts, 
 within the time specified, to counteract the designs of the Papists, 
 we believe to have been the effort of Mr. Southgate to restore to 
 the Jacobites a number of their churches in Mesopotamia and 
 Syria, that had been seized and appropriated by the Papists. 
 Firmans for the restoration of these churches had been obtained 
 by the Jacobite patriarch at different times, without any foreign 
 aid, as is distinctly stated in Mr. Southgate’s book of travels in 
 Mesopotamia. Witbin the last two years a new firman has been 
 procured through the intervention of the English ambassador; 
 who, in consequence of the representations of Mr. Southgate and 
 others, was induced to back up the representations of the Jacobite 
 
24 
 
 bishop of Mosul to the Porte ; hut, through the counter intrigues 
 of the Papists, this new firman shared the fate of its predecessors. 
 And furthermore, Mr. Southgate well knew, when he penned the 
 above sentence in regard to what he and his coadjutors have done 
 during the last two years, that that firman had never been carried 
 into effect, and that things actually remain just as they were before 
 his efforts were commenced. 
 
 You will observe that in this case the attempt was merely to 
 recover from the Papists, not masses of people, but masses of 
 stone and mortar,—that is, church buildings ; and even if the fir¬ 
 man had taken effect, not a single soul, ensnared by Rome, would 
 necessarily have been reclaimed. This therefore could not have 
 been quoted as an illustration of the superior “power and advant¬ 
 ages ” of Episcopacy for moving communities. And furthermore, 
 the firman was procured by ambassadorial interference, and it had 
 nothing to do with Episcopacy, as such. Instead of showing any 
 peculiar power in Episcopacy, or adaptedness to moving masses 
 of people in the East, it only shows the good disposition of Sir 
 Stratford Canning to plead the cause of the oppressed, and, if you 
 please, Mr. Southgate’s good disposition, as an individual—not as 
 an Episcopalian—in exerting himself for their relief. As it is, 
 he takes to himself and to his church all the praise of this be¬ 
 nevolent attempt, the chief part of which is due to Sir Stratford 
 Canning; and he refers to it as something actually accomplished, 
 in resisting the encroachments of papacy, while in fact the at¬ 
 tempt failed and nothing has been accomplished. But, it may be 
 asked, does he not refer to some other instance in which he has 
 been successful in his efforts against papacy ? We answer, that 
 if there had been any such instance, in which papal encroach¬ 
 ments had been counteracted in the wholesale manner spoken of 
 by Mr. S., doubtless we should have known it; for the larger the 
 mass upon which the effort has been successfully made, evidently, 
 the more notorious must be the fact. But we know of no such 
 case in all this eastern world. In connection with this topic, Mr. 
 Southgate declares that he has abundant evidence, that “ the pa¬ 
 pal missionaries regard episcopal missions and not ours, as the 
 great obstacle in the way of their progress.” (p. 15.) On this 
 point we have only to say that the Papists have preached against 
 us, written books against us by name, thundered anathemas 
 against us and all who should have anything to do with us, and 
 they have represented us in their published reports as being a very 
 formidable obstacle to their operations in the East. And we have 
 never heard of their ever having even alluded to Mr. Southgate or 
 his colleagues by name, or in any way, so as to distinguish him 
 from us. And we should like, also, to know how it could be, that 
 
 y 
 
25 
 
 a knowledge of the fact, that his church is episcopal, would excite 
 peculiar suspicion and peculiar fears in the minds of Papists, while 
 a knowledge of the same fact inspires (as Mr. S. represents) with 
 brotherly love and confidence the minds of the Greeks and Ar¬ 
 menians ? 
 
 (6.) We wish to call your attention to some mis-statements 
 and contradictions in this pamphlet of Mr. Southgate, which it 
 would be very gratifying to us to have explained. 
 
 On p. 23, Mr. S. says, I have even declined to form acquaint¬ 
 ance with persons whom I knew to he hostile to them,” i. e. to 
 us. This declaration has no force unless it means that he has 
 declined both forming and cultivating the acquaintance of those 
 whom he knew to be hostile to us, and for the reason that they 
 are hostile to us. There are many persons to be found here, who 
 are hostile to us, hut whose acquaintance any decent man would 
 decline forming, because it would be a disgrace to him to be inti¬ 
 mate with such characters. We do not assert that Mr. Southgate 
 alludes to such characters merely, hut we would like to ask of 
 how much worth is this statement, when, as a matter of fact, he 
 does cultivate a most intimate acquaintance with some whom he 
 knows to be among our bitterest enemies. This is the case with 
 at least three prominent individuals, who were formerly our friends, 
 but whom he was the principal instrument in drawing away from 
 us, and who have ever since been plotting our overthrow. We 
 are knowing to the fact that they are freely received at his house, 
 and declared bv him to be excellent men, in a much better state 
 of mind than they were before ; and the adopted son of one of 
 them, who was a member of our Seminary, Mr. S. has sent to 
 America for an education. 
 
 Again, on the first page of the Appendix, Mr. S. takes the word 
 church from a newspaper reporter, and uses it in such a way, in 
 reference to our Armenian service, as to leave the impression on 
 the minds of his episcopal readers, that this mode of designating 
 that service is approved and adopted by us, which he certainly 
 knows is not true. Is this fair and candid, or the reverse ? 
 
 Again, Mr. S. professes that his rule is non-interference with us, 
 and that he has never in a single instance, departed from this rule 
 (pp. 23 and 25) ; but on page 15 he states it as his deliberate 
 conviction, that Congregationalism cannot possibly produce any 
 strong impression on the episcopal churches of the East, not hav¬ 
 ing those features which are considered by these corrupt churches, 
 as the outward and visible signs of a church, and he says in a note 
 on the same page, that where these signs are wanting, these 
 churches will immediately reject without further inquiry. But 
 still he acknowledges that he faithfully complies with the Instruc¬ 
 tions he received, and makes known to these people that we are 
 
26 
 
 wanting in these signs of a true Christmn church, knowing that 
 they will immediately reject us. What is this but intended inter¬ 
 ference with our labors,—judging the case on his own principles.* 
 Nor is the character of his intentions and motives in the least 
 degree altered, by the falseness of his theories about the compara¬ 
 tive advantages of Protestant Episcopalians, and Protestant Pres¬ 
 byterians or Congregationalists. 
 
 Again on page 24, Mr. S. represents us as endeavoring to make 
 the impression that we are Episcopalians, and among other proofs 
 of this he states that until within two or three years “ we were all 
 supposed to be bishops.” And in a note at the bottom, he says 
 that an Armenian priest said to him but a short time ago, ‘‘ What 
 a singular church theirs must be, when all their ministers are 
 hishopsP And we also would exclaim—What a singular Episco¬ 
 pacy they must have supposed ours to be, if the impression of 
 which Mr. S. speaks was that all our ministers are bishops ! 
 According to his representation, the case must stand about thus: 
 We have been laboring hard for thirteen years to make the people 
 of these eastern churches believe that we, like them, and like Mr. 
 Southgate, and like the English church, are Episcopalians, and 
 among other artihces that we have resorted to, such as “ wearing 
 the clerical gown,” “ making the sign of the cross in baptism,” 
 and “ using the prayer-book,” we have told them that in our 
 church all the ministers are bishops ! That is, we have informed 
 them, that among us there is only one order of the clergy— 
 whether called bishops, or elders, or ministers, and this led the 
 Armenian priest to exclaim with wonder at the fact that there was 
 such a church in the world. In what manner Mr. S. would recon¬ 
 cile the difterent parts of this story with itself, we cannot imagine. 
 We have always supposed that three orders of the clergy was 
 considered by Mr. Southgate and his church as essential to Epis¬ 
 copacy ; and if his object is to represent us as claiming to belong 
 to churches which have only one order of the clergy, all of whom 
 are considered as bishops, we are willing to answer to this charge 
 before the American public. 
 
 Again, Mr. Southgate represents us as studiously avoiding any 
 controversy with him or his church in the field, lest our masks 
 should thereby be removed, and the people find out what we are. 
 (p. 12.) He says, “ The war will be continued at home ; news¬ 
 paper and annual reports will be full of it ; but here not a breath 
 will be raised nor a word uttered to show that we are any way 
 distinct from them.” We beg you to compare this with a sentence 
 on page 23, in which he says, “ Hard speeches said against me, 
 or against my church have been reported to me as coming from 
 
 * See Note III. 
 
27 
 
 them (i. e. from the missionaries of the Board). I have passed 
 them by in silence for the sake of peace,” he. We would like 
 to ask Mr. Southgate which of these two contradictory representa¬ 
 tions is true. He first informs his readers that we are so eager for 
 passing ourselves off as Episcopalians that we never utter a word 
 nor even raise a breath here to show that we are in any way dis¬ 
 tinct from him. He then declares, that he has been informed, not 
 merely that we “ raise a breath ” and ‘‘ utter a word,’ but that 
 we make hard speeches against him and his church.” We leave 
 it with Mr. S. to reconcile these contradictions as best he can. 
 
 (7.) In conclusion, we shall briefly call your attention to sev¬ 
 eral statements in this pamphlet, our remarks upon which could 
 not well be arranged under any of the preceding topics. 
 
 («.) On page 11, Mr. Southgate explicitly acknowledges that 
 Mr. Badger has assumed a position of hostility ” towards the 
 missionaries of the Board. And yet he complains (p. 10), that 
 “ no means have been spared to make it appear that this mission, 
 that is, the English mission to the Mountain Nestorians, was a 
 conspiracy against ” the operations of the Board ; adding that 
 “ the missionary, the Society which supported him, and the digni¬ 
 taries of the church who favored the enterprise, have been assailed 
 with unmeasured abuse.” Now, if it is a plain matter of fact that 
 IVIr. Badger has placed himself in hostile array against our missions, 
 as Mr. Southgate acknowledges, is it falsifying the truth to repre¬ 
 sent that his mission is a conspiracy against the operations of the 
 Board ? And if “ the Society that supports Mr. Badger and the 
 dignitaries of the church who favored the enterprize,” after having 
 been well informed of his hostility to us, still continue him in the 
 field, do they not virtually assume the responsibility of all his acts, 
 and are they not really as much to blame as he is himself? And 
 if these facts are stated in the public papers, can it be called 
 ‘‘ abuse ?” We do not, however, acknowledge any responsibility 
 in regard to any statements in reference to Mr. Badger or Mr. 
 Southgate, of which we were not the authors ; and we will say, in 
 this connection, that in regard to the “ Nestorian massacre,” wm 
 think Mr. Southgate might, in candor, have acknowledged, that 
 the first vindication from all blame in the matter, of himself and 
 Mr. Badger, that appeared before the public, was from the pen of 
 Dr. Grant, one of the missionaries of the American Board. 
 
 (6.) On page 17, Mr. Southgate, in speaking of his first im¬ 
 pressions, on visiting the nominally Christian churches in Turkey, 
 remarks—‘‘ I was particularly struck with their great resemblance 
 to us, not only in the constitution of their ministry, but in their 
 use of the same creed, and in their general views and preposses¬ 
 sions, with regard to the nature and character of the Christian 
 church. I found myself, in a word, among Episcopalians, and 
 
28 
 
 was at once surprised and pleased with the numerous points of 
 affinity between us.” In other portions of this pamphlet, he rep¬ 
 resents himself as laboring hard and successfully against Papacy ; 
 and he rejects the charge (imputed by a reporter to Dr. Anderson) 
 that his influence coincided with the papal missionaries. It must 
 also be borne in mind that when Mr. Southgate returned from 
 America after his first visit there, he brought a letter, signed by 
 seven bishops of his church, addressed to the Greek and Syrian 
 patriarchs, in which the proposition is formally made for a certain 
 kind of friendly alliance and co-operation. Now, we do not intend 
 to charge Mr. Southgate with acting in concert with the Papal 
 church, but from all the above, we cannot possibly conceive why 
 he should be unwilling so to act, provided the Papists were willing 
 to accept of such an ally. For, in the first place, there is no very 
 material difference between these Eastern churches, among whom 
 he found “ so many points of affinity with his own,” and the 
 papal church. The latter, equally with the former, has the 
 three orders.” It has also the same creed,” and the same 
 ‘‘general views and prepossessions with regard to the nature and 
 character of the Christian church.” Why then should not Mr. S. 
 frankly acknowledge, in his communications home, that he finds in 
 the Papal church also “ numerous points of affinity with his 
 own ? ” 
 
 And, in the second place, a formal proposition has been made 
 by him, as the organ of his church, to the Greek and Syrian patri¬ 
 archs, for some kind of an alliance and co-operation. If therefore 
 in the same letter from some missionary of the American Board, 
 in which it was announced that the Greek patriarch has recently 
 issued another thundering bull against the reading of the Scriptures 
 in a language understood by the people, it were also stated that 
 the Rev. Mr. Southgate seeks to form such an alliance with this 
 patriarch as will secure a fraternal correspondence and co-operation 
 between the Greek church and the Episcopal church of America, 
 would the statement be slanderous ? And if he can co-operate 
 with the Greeks, on what ground can he refuse to co-operate with 
 the Papists. Every essential error in doctrine and practice, found 
 in the Papal church, is also found in the Greek ; and the latter 
 has shown as deep and bitter hostility to evangelical missions as 
 the former. And when the Greek church is as well known in 
 America as the Papal church is, we believe the Episcopalians will 
 seek no more alliance with her. 
 
 Mr. S. professes to protest as faithfully against the corruptions 
 of these Eastern communions, as any missionary in the land ; ” 
 (p. 14) ; but the question suggests itself at once, what does he 
 regard as corruptions ? Is it the intercession of the saints ? the 
 bowing down to pictures ? the worship of the Virgin Mary ? or 
 
29 
 
 the use of relics? We have already reported to you, that more 
 than one individual has informed us that he has been instructed 
 by Mr. Southgate, that it is his duty to do all these things, pro¬ 
 vided he is so commanded by his bishop. And we can refer to 
 his own printed communications to show that he sees very little, 
 if anything, that is wrong in the forms and ceremonies of these 
 Eastern churches—if they were only animated by a new “ spiritual 
 life.” What, then, can his protestations amount to ? 
 
 On page 20th, Mr. Southgate gives a most unsatisfactory ex¬ 
 planation of the meaning of a certain passage in the letter of ‘‘ the 
 seven bishops.” On this subject we have to state, that, at a 
 formal conference with Mr. S., we once referred to the great unfair¬ 
 ness of the bishops, in thus sanctioning the use of the terms 
 Lutheran and Calvinist, as applied to us, here in the East; and 
 we distinctly declared to Mr. S. that we considered him respon¬ 
 sible for the injustice that was thus done us, as, if he had not the 
 dictation of that letter, he at least must have known what it con¬ 
 tained, and could have had it altered. To all this he, at that 
 time, remained perfectly silent, for he was, no doubt, taken some¬ 
 what by surprise. He has since been pressed on this same point 
 in public, and now he attempts an explanation ; though to us it 
 appears that it would have been better for him to have remained 
 silent. 
 
 On page 21st, Mr. S. asserts that he knows of “ one plan in 
 particular,” which the American Board has on the mode of 
 conducting their Eastern missions,” which it has never published 
 through fear of losing some of its supporters. We are ignorant 
 of any such concealed plan, and we would like to have Mr. South- 
 gate called upon to state what it is. 
 
 On the same page, and also elsewhere, he speaks of new inter¬ 
 pretations being put upon documents which have been unnoticed 
 for years.” He alludes to the Instructions of Mr. Vaughan and 
 Bishop Griswold to him and Dr. Robertson. But has Mr. S. for¬ 
 gotten that what he calls a “ new interpretation, is precisely the 
 interpretation we gave of these same documents as soon as they 
 came before the public, and that, at that very time, we called upon 
 him and Dr. Robertson to explain them ? True, these documents 
 have not been noticed in public, because there was nothing to call 
 for such a notice until it became quite clear, from the course pur¬ 
 sued by Mr. Southgate, that the obvious meaning of the Instruc¬ 
 tions was the true one, and that it was time to lay the whole 
 subject before the public. 
 
 On page 23d, Mr. S., in speaking of us, declares that “ he has 
 seen many things in the doings of the missionaries, which seemed 
 to him of a most injurious tendency to the great interests of truth 
 and pietyj^ We think this declaration implies a charge of a very 
 
 4 
 
30 
 
 grave character, and we hope Mr. Southgate will be called upon 
 to state definitely what he has thus loosely thrown out against us. 
 We think we have a right to know what those things are to which 
 he alludes, so ‘‘ injurious to the great interests of truth and 
 piety. 
 
 But we must not tax your patience any longer. We take the 
 liberty of requesting that if this communication or any portion of 
 it shall be published, it may not appear as a full answer to the 
 
 Vindication ” of Mr. Southgate, for this it does not profess to be. 
 We have aimed to notice only such things as concerned us at this 
 station ; and even here we have often spoken very briefly, or said 
 nothing, believing that you are already in possession of documents 
 sufficient to explain those particular topics. We beg leave to 
 assure you in closing, that we have no apprehension of losing the 
 confidence of our patrons through such efforts as this of Mr. 
 Southgate to injure us. His pamphlet, we doubt not, will be 
 duly appreciated by those whose esteem we most value. 
 
 We remain, very truly, yours, &c. 
 
 W. Goodell, 
 
 H. G. O. Dwight, 
 
 W. G. SCHAUFFLER, 
 Henry A. Homes, 
 
 C. Hamlin, 
 
 G. W. Wood, 
 
 H. J. Van Lennep. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 EXTRACTS OF A LETTER FROM THE MISSIONARIES AT 
 CONSTANTINOPLE, DATED DEC. 1, 1842. 
 
 This letter was written soon after the suspension of Mr. Dwight’s religious service, 
 and in fact after it had been again resumed ; but while the event was yet recent. 
 
 Dear Sir, —You have already been informed, in general terms, of some 
 recent circumstances of an unpleasant nature that have taken place among 
 the Armenians of this city. We propose, now, as a station, to give you a 
 detailed account of them, both that you may be fully informed in regard 
 to the whole matter, and also that a record of these events may be preserv¬ 
 ed for future use in case of need. We would gladly draw a veil of oblivion 
 over transactions so little creditable to those who have been actively en¬ 
 gaged in them ; but some of the circumstances are too public to be con¬ 
 cealed, and a satisfactory explanation of what is already before the world, 
 demands a detailed narration of events, which otherwise we might have 
 chosen to suppress. You have been told that two Armenians, who, for a 
 course of years, have been very friendly to us, have suddenly become our 
 enemies. Formerly, they were seekers for the truth, and we have at times 
 had the hope that one or both of them had become its true disciples. Now, 
 they plead strenuously for the superstitions of their church, and are ready 
 to declare war against every one who even intimates that there are idola¬ 
 trous practices among the Armenians. Formerly they resorted to us fre¬ 
 quently, and made many serious inquiries in regard to the truths of the 
 Bible, with the entire confidence of those, who, conscious of their own ig¬ 
 norance, felt assured that they had found teachers capable of guiding them 
 in the right way. Now they avoid us entirely, as if we were some evil 
 and pestiferous thing, and if they happen to meet one of us, they address 
 us only in pride and in anger. Formerly they commended our books, our 
 seminary, and our labors generally, to their friends and neighbors as they 
 had opportunity. Now, they take special opportunity to blacken our char¬ 
 acters in every way; calling us liars, hypocrites, deceivers of the people, 
 heretics and infidels, and warning every body against having to do with us, 
 our school, or our books. 
 
 You will wish to know what has produced this change; and on this 
 point we now intend to give you all the light we have, that you may, if 
 possible, be equally qualified with us to judge in the case. 
 
 About one and a half months ago we heard that the two Armenians, just 
 spoken of, were suddenly very much enraged against us, and, on inquiring 
 the cause, were told that they had, from some unknown quarter, been put 
 in possession of a translation of a part of one of our journals published in 
 
32 
 
 the Missionary Herald, in which we speak of a division of the Armenian 
 church. {See Mr. Dwight's journalin the Herald for Sept., 1840.) Their 
 understanding of this article was in some respects quite erroneous, and it 
 was evidently just the occasion they had so long wanted to get hold of 
 something, by which they might injure us, if not destroy us. We imme¬ 
 diately sought an interview with them, but could not obtain it. We soon 
 learned, however, that Mr. Southgate was the man who had put this article 
 into their hands. He had showed it a few days previously to Mr. Panayotes, 
 a Greek, who has long been in our employ, and told him that if those ivere 
 our views in regard to dividing the Armenian church, he should feel it his 
 duty to warn the people against us. This Mr. Southgate denies having said, 
 though Mr. Panayotes, in whose integrity and piety we have the fullest 
 confidence, still affirms that he did say it. We immediately requested an 
 interview with Mr. Southgate, and proposed to him a number of questions 
 in regard to this aft'air. He acknowledged having translated verbally a 
 part of the article in question to G-, [one of the Armenians already de¬ 
 
 scribed.] His account of the matter was, that, a few days previously, he 
 had accidentally fallen upon that number of the Missionary Herald, and 
 read the article in question for the first time, and that it had attracted his 
 attention and greatly excited his surprise, as he had supposed our views in 
 regard to a division of the oriental churches were very different from those 
 expressed in that paper. G. happened to come in soon after, and while the 
 thing was fresh in his mind, without any previous thought, or any evil in¬ 
 tention against us, he translated it to that individual merely for the purpose 
 of ascertaining whether he had understood our views to be such as then 
 expressed ; at the same time charging him not to mention the thing to 
 any body else except to Mr. Hohannes, G. himself having requested 
 
 permission to do so. Afterwards A-, [the other of the two,] came with 
 
 G. and wished to see the article, and showed that he had received some 
 wrong views in regard to the article, which Mr. S. says he endeavored to 
 correct. He also declares that he then endeavored to persuade them not 
 to let the matter go any farther. Mr. S. declined entirely answering the 
 question, whether he knew of any other person who has exerted an influ¬ 
 ence to spread this thing among the Armenians. In regard to this ques¬ 
 tion, however, we would state the following facts, which may throw light 
 upon it. A. [one of these two Armenians] declared to Mr. Hohannes, again 
 and again, that he first heard of the printed journal through an Armenian, 
 whose name he would not mention, but says it was not from G. There is 
 an Armenian young man, who has been in the habit of attending our Ar¬ 
 menian service and who knows English, whose father, we have learned, 
 is calling us by many hard names, and it is evident that his mind has been 
 filled wiih prejudices by some foreigner. Mr. Southgate himself acknowl¬ 
 edged that G. and A. have the above named number of the Missionary 
 Heiald in their hands, but he denies having given it to them. Mr. Badger 
 was living at Mr. Southgate’s house at the time, and we know that he had 
 seen that number of the Herald, and we know also from one witness, and 
 that one an Episcopalian, that he had threatened to inflict a blow upon us, 
 which should cause us to repent of having come out here, and that he de¬ 
 clared to Mr. Southgate, that “ the American bishops ought to unite with 
 those of England in making such representations to the ecclesiastical au¬ 
 thorities of this country, as would lead them to drive us all out.” We 
 know, also, that the Jacobite bishop of Mosul, who has been staying a good 
 deal at Mr. Southgate’s house, was about that time in the bazaars with a 
 tertain Frank (name not known,) and as they were buying something 
 from an Armenian young man, a perfect stranger, the Frank asked the 
 young man to what nation he belonged. When told that he was an Ar¬ 
 menian, the Frank said, There are some Americans who have come here 
 and opened a meeting for the Armenians, and are going to divide the Ar¬ 
 menian church j why dont you rise up and drive them out of the country ?” 
 
33 
 
 The young man was astonished at being addressed in this abrupt manner, 
 on such a subject, in the bazaars, and by a stranger; and he told it to one 
 of our friends^ who told it to us. You have the same means of forming a 
 probable conjecture as to who that Frank might be as we, since we have 
 told you that the Jacobite bishop was with him, and that both the bishop 
 and Mr. Badger w’ere at that very lime residing with Mr. Southgate. In 
 regard to Mr. Southgate’s alleged reasons for what he did, we can only say 
 that they were entirely unsatisfactory. He declares that he accidentally 
 fell upon the article, for the first time, a few days before our interview with 
 him; whereas, in a consultation, called for by Dr. Robertson and Mr. 
 Southgate a year ago or more, Dr. R. brought lorward that very article as 
 an evidence that we are not so conservative in our principles as we had 
 professed, and it was talked about and explained by us apparently to their 
 satisfaction. Mr. Vaughan also referred to the same article in his letter to 
 Professor Pond, and it is most likely had written also to his missionaries 
 here in regard to it. At any rate, we know positively that they had read it 
 a year ago, and now Mr. Southgate professes never to have seen it until 
 quite lately, and that by accident! Again, his reason for showing it to the 
 Armenians was altogether unsatisfactory, and contradictory to what he him¬ 
 self said to Mr. Panayotes. If he wished to understand our views, why 
 should he go to an Armenian to ask an explanation of what he understood 
 them to be 1 We can conceive of no other object that he could have had 
 in view, but of exciting prejudices against us in that man’s mind; unless 
 we suppose it was altogether a hasty, unpremeditated act, of which he 
 repented the next moment. But, in the first place, Mr. Southgate is not a 
 hasty man. He acts, usually, with thought and deliberation, and he under¬ 
 stands well the genius of the people with whom we have to deal in these 
 countries. In the second place, he has the example of Athens fresh before 
 him, and was, of course, most intimately acquainted with all the disastrous 
 consequences of a publication of one of Mrs. Hill’s letters in a Greek 
 newspaper. And in the third place, we have to this day not seen, in what 
 Mr. b. has said or done, the slightest evidence that he regrets the part he 
 took in this transaction or the results of it. He even commends the present 
 spirit of the two Armenians above mentioned, saying that they appear to 
 him to be now in about the right position of mind; while they are daily 
 and continually manifesting the most outrageous spirit, full of pride, 
 enmity and bitterness, and are pleading for all the idolatry of their church. 
 iNior can Mr. S. be ignorant of this; for we know' it to be a fact, that, at this 
 very time, they are having frequent intercourse wfith him. It is true that 
 Mr. Southgate, at one consultation, promised, after some hesitation, that he 
 W’ould see those two Armenians, and tell them that he is satisfied that w'e 
 have no intention of dividing the Armenian church ; but if we may judge 
 of the manner in w'hich he fulfilled the promise, from the impression left 
 on the minds of the disafiected by what he said, w'e cannot suppose that 
 he is ready to take much pains to heal the breach which he has made. 
 One of the individuals referred to, on being asked by one of us w'hether 
 Mr. S. had communicated anything to them on this subject, replied,—'•* \ es, 
 he said that he now does not believe that your plan is to divide the Arme¬ 
 nian church, and that you acknowledged that you were sorry you wrote that 
 journal, which was done in the midst of excitement and passion occa¬ 
 sioned by the persecution! ” We of course have no means of knowing 
 exactly what Mr. S. did say to them except from w'hat they say, from 
 which it is very evident that between them and Mr. S. there is a misrepre¬ 
 sentation. In the article in the Herald, of which he translated a part to 
 these Armenians, there is a distinct declaration, twice repeated, that we are 
 to have nothing to do with dividing the Armenian church. This he never 
 translated to them ! but said that we wrote to our Society saying that 
 the present is not a favorable time for a division, but that when the number 
 of enlightened Armenians shall increase, the separation may be effected, 
 
34 
 
 by presenting a petition through some ambassador to the Porte, to have the 
 Evangelical party set off, and a new patriarch appointed over them. If you 
 will take the pains to refer to the journal in question, as printed in the 
 Herald, you will see how distorted a view this translation is of the meaning 
 of the original. 
 
 The disaffected Armenians have evidently been told by somebody, a 
 number of things in regard to us calculated greatly to prejudice their 
 minds; such as that we are not ordained; that we are Lutherans and Cal¬ 
 vinists ; that we are erroneous in our theological opinions: that we are divided 
 into many sects; &c. We took occasion to ask Mr. Southgate, at the inter¬ 
 view we had with him, whether he had been the means of communicating 
 these things to their minds ? His uniform reply to our questions on these 
 topics was, that he did not remember ever having said exactly so. He pre¬ 
 sumed that if the question had ever been asked him by a native whether 
 he regarded us as regularly ordained, he had probably said “no.” He did 
 not know that he had ever said that we were Calvinists and Lutherans, 
 though he remembered once that an Armenian advanced a certain opinion 
 in regard to the Lord’s Supper, when he replied to him, “ That was Calvin’s 
 view of the subject.” In regard to this we would say that with Mr. S.’s 
 views on the subject, it can hardly be otherwise than that he should take 
 favorable opportunities to state to the people such things as the above with 
 regard to us. The very fact that he does not remember, shows that his prin¬ 
 ciples would allow him to speak to our prejudice in this way among the 
 people here, otherwise he would have remembered, positively, that he never 
 did such a thing. His colleague Dr. Robertson, on one occasion, to our 
 knowledge, when conversing with some Armenians in regard to us, and 
 they ventured to assert that we are regularly ordained, became much 
 excited, and raising both hands said with a loud voice—“ They are no 
 priests; they are no priests; I am a priest, but they are no priests ! ” He 
 meant, of course, that we are not ordained; for we never pretended to be 
 priests, and he know^s well, that, according to our views, there are no priests 
 on earth, under the Christian dispensation. 
 
 Mr. Southgate professed, at our interview, as he had in fact before done, 
 to feel a deep interest in our labors here. He remarked that he had “no 
 doubt that the work going on here among the Armenians is the work of 
 God.” He even admitted with us that, in case the members of the Eastern 
 churches were not permitted to worship God according to their own con¬ 
 sciences, and were persecuted for their love of the truth, and must either 
 sacrifice the truth, or separate, it would become their duty to separate. 
 “ Otherwise,” said he, “ I must condemn the Reformation in Europe.” 
 This is precisely the ground that we have taken; and it is the only thing 
 intended in the printed journal referred to, which was written in the midst 
 of persecution for the tiuth’s sake. 
 
 As to the effects of this movement thus far, we cannot see that they have 
 been very disastrous. Every effort has been made by the two disaffected 
 individuals to sour the minds of the enlightened Armenians ajzainst us; but 
 hitherto, so far as w’^e know, without the slightest success. We record this 
 remarkable fact with a sense of devout gratitude to God, who has thus pre¬ 
 served his people from being torn by the devouring wolves. Some, who 
 were before our enemies, have taken new courage, and probably some 
 (perhaps many) of the ignorant and bigoted class have become more preju¬ 
 diced against us, but so far as we can ascertain not one of our brethren, or 
 of those who were in the habit of attending our services, has been at all 
 unfavorably affected in regard to us. On the contrary they seem to under¬ 
 stand the whole matter with wonderful clearness, and, without any explana¬ 
 tion from us, place it upon the right ground ; and they have received such 
 a lesson on the nature of high church principles as they will probably never 
 forget. Our public service was for a time suspended, with the hope that 
 the two individuals might be conciliated; but we have now become satis- 
 
35 
 
 fied that it is useless to make the least attempt to bring them to terms. In 
 the meantime, the Armenians were never more free in visiting us, and never 
 more importunate that we should have a public preaching service, which 
 has now, at their earnest solicitation, been resumed. Our books, also, were 
 never in greater demand. In short there are no signs of fear among our 
 friends generally, and many of them matjifest a readiness to suffer, if need 
 be, for the name of Christ. What they would do if brought to a test, we 
 cannot say, but of some of them we have the hope that, by the grace of 
 God, they would endure to the end, even though visited by persecutions 
 and death. 
 
 EXTRACTS OF A LETTER FROM THE MISSIONARIES AT 
 CONSTANTINOPLE, DATED FEB. 7, 1844. 
 
 After Mr. Southgate had seen the reports of Dr. Anderson’s remarks in reply to the 
 interrogatories put to him at Rochester, and also his reply to the Secretary of the Epis¬ 
 copal Board, he addressed a letter to the missionaries at Constantinople, which led to 
 a correspondence. A copy of this correspondence was transmitted to the Secretaries 
 of the American Board, with the letter from which the following extracts are made. 
 
 Dear Sir, —You will receive, with this, a copy of a correspondence be¬ 
 tween Mr. Southgate and your missionaries at this station, to which I have 
 been appointed to append some explanations. You will perceive that 
 Mr. S. in his first letter, states three charges, which, he says, were made 
 against him by yourself at the last meeting of the American Board in 
 Rochester, and he calls upon us to say, Whether these charges have been 
 or are preferred by our mission, or members of our mission in this city; 
 and if so, upon what grounds they are based.” You will also see from our 
 reply, that we declined answering his questions; on the ground, that if we 
 did so, or entered into any explanations of the subject, that would imply, 
 that we might be held responsible for charges made against him by another, 
 in which no reference was made to us as the authors of those charges; a 
 principle, which we could by no means allow. And furthermore, we learned 
 from Mr. S. himself, that the Secretary of the Foreign Missionary Commit¬ 
 tee of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States had written to 
 you, asking on what authority you had preferred those charges; and, for 
 aught that we knew to the contrary, you had made known to him the 
 grounds on which the charges had been made. At any rate, while you 
 were the proper person to be called upon to explain your own remarks, it 
 was evidently highly improper to demand from us an explanation. Rather 
 than yield the principle that we are not to be held responsible for the state¬ 
 ments of others, nor to be called upon for an explanation of any such state¬ 
 ments, we preferred to subject ourselves to the charge of a want of open¬ 
 ness and frankness, which Mr. S. preferred against us in his second letter. 
 Whatever we have written to you, as a station, in reference to Mr. S.’s 
 doings here, we still believe to be strictly true. We have no evidence that 
 a single fact was mis-stated, and we would retract nothing of all that we 
 have said, so far as the facts in the case are concerned. And we stand 
 ready to take the responsibility before the public, whenever the proper time 
 shall come, of all the statements we have made. 
 
 Before proceeding to notice particular passages in Mr. S.’s letters, you 
 will permit us to direct your attention to the principles of action he avows 
 in reference to other missionaries. It seems to us, that we have here, from 
 his own mouth, a virtual confession that all we have charged against him is 
 
 
36 
 
 true, and that this will enable us to explain^some things, which otherwise 
 might appear to be inexplicable. In his second letter, he says, As to my 
 general views and course, (which were made—farther perhaps than pro¬ 
 priety warranted—the subject of a desultory conversalion at the conference,) 
 it would never enter my mind to seek for them the approbation of any others 
 on earth, than the committee or the church to which I am responsible.'’ 
 
 Again, in the same letter, he says, “ Permit me to add, that the only mo¬ 
 tive of my former communication to Mr. Goodell was, to take a step towards 
 bringing out clearly my position, which is, to represent my own church, and 
 do the work committed to me, without assuming hostility towards, or speak¬ 
 ing evil of, the missionaries of other denominations. I have taken this 
 position solely from the conviction, (to which 1 have been led by earnest 
 prayer and reflection,) that it can only be, under common circumstances, a 
 detriment to the cause of our blessed Savior, to present to the Eastern 
 Christians a spectacle of strife and contention.” 
 
 ‘‘ Having assumed this position, I shall not abandon it for any less cause 
 than that which induced me to take it. When the interests of the Redeem¬ 
 er’s kingdom appear to me to be receiving injury from any acts of yours, or 
 of others, I trust that I shall not hesitate to use my utmost influence to avert 
 the evil; and in such case, I would know no difference, unless it might be 
 in the particular mode of proceeding, between a missionary of my own 
 church and another.” 
 
 If these passages have any meaning, it is this, that Mr. S. has deliber¬ 
 ately and prayerfully made up his mind not to assume hostility towards 
 or speak evil of us,” unless in his view, the interests of the Redeemer’s 
 kingdom require it: and that, if at any lime, the course of measures we 
 adopt, in endeavoring to reform these corrupt churches, should, in his view, 
 threaten injury to the Redeemer’s kingdom, he should feel called upon to 
 use his utmost influence to avert the evil. And we have an illustration of 
 his principle, as we suppose, in what he actually did when he translated a 
 portion of the Herald to some of the Armenians. We had a preaching ser¬ 
 vice every Sabbath, among the Armenians. This he regarded as one step 
 towards producing schism, which, in his estimation, is one of the greatest 
 of all evils that could threaten these Eastern churches. That he did so 
 regard our meeting, he himself declared to us. What, therefore, could be 
 more natural, or more consistent with his own avowed principles, than for 
 him to “ use his utmost influence to avert this evil,” i. e. to break up our 
 meeting. This we suppose was one object he had in view, and perhaps 
 the principal one, when he translated from the Herald to some Armenians 
 a passage which seemed to him clearly to show that our design is to divide 
 the Armenian church. We have some collateral testimony on this point 
 to which we must briefly refer you. The two Armenians to whom he 
 showed the Herald, and who, from that time, assumed an attitude of decided 
 hostility to us, were immediately clamorous for the relinquishment of this 
 meetirig. One of them had before advised that the meeting be suspended, 
 ostensibly in order to conciliate some "worldly men whom he hoped, by this 
 means, to gain over to the truth. But now, for the first time, we heard from 
 them, that if this meeting was continued, there would inevitably he a division 
 in the Armenian church, and we were referred, by them, to examples in past 
 ages, where similar meetings have resulted in division 5 that is, during the 
 Reformation in Europe. Until that moment, we had supposed these men 
 to be entirely ignorant of Church History, and, especially, of the History of 
 the Reformation; but now they seemed to have been taking lessons from 
 some one, "who was capable of teaching them, and their acquaintance with 
 the subject of the schisms that have taken place in the church, was sur¬ 
 prising to us. Who their teacher was, we are not able positively to say, 
 though he was certainly very industrious, just at that particular time. Per¬ 
 haps we may obtain some light on this subject from a paragraph of an 
 article over the signature H. jn the New York Observer for December 2 , 
 
37 
 
 1843. The writer is evidently in possession of original documents from 
 Mr. Southgate, and it is possible he may be the Secretary of the Episcopal 
 Foreign Missionary Committee himself, as there is an official air in his 
 mode of writing. He assures the public, ‘Hhat a suspension of the meet¬ 
 ings of the missionaries of the American Board had been under discussion 
 among the Armenisins for four months before’’ Mr. S. translated the pas¬ 
 sage from the Herald. It seems then not only that there had been dis¬ 
 cussion on this subject, but that Mr. Southgate was knowing to it, and not 
 only so, but that he was so intimately acquainted with the matter, as to be 
 able to state the precise time when the discussion about discontinuing the 
 meetings commenced, namely, just four months before he translated the para¬ 
 graphs from the Herald ! Pei haps he might also state, if he were disposed, 
 exactly how the discussion originated, and what means were used to give it 
 the right shape and direction so as to produce the desired result, of breaking 
 up these meetings. At any rate, though we cannot prove that Mr. S. him¬ 
 self did originate the thought among the Armenians that those meetings 
 would produce schism, we know that he had the thought in his own mind; 
 for, as we have said, he once avowed it to us ; and w'e gather from the 
 paragraph referred to that he was at least privy to those discussions ; and 
 if he did lend a helping hand in any way to bring them to the point which 
 the enemies of the light and truth have always so much desired, namely, 
 to secure the suspension of our meetings, he only acted in accordance with 
 his own avowed principles of action.^ It should be stated in this connec¬ 
 tion, that Mr. S.’s avowed field of labors has always been among the Greeks 
 and the Jacobites, and that he has ever disclaimed any purpose of laboring 
 among the Armenians. How then does he know so well what the private 
 views of the Armenians are, and what topics of discussion come up pri¬ 
 vately among them. 
 
 We have a few remarks to make on the principles of action towards 
 other missionaries, avowed by Mr. S., and quoted above from his own letter. 
 He says, that when the interests of the Redeemer’s kingdom appear to 
 him to be receiving injury from any acts of ours, he should not hesitate to 
 use his utmost influence to avert the evil.” Here is a principle which, in 
 the abstract, is correct, and upon which we ever desire to act in regard to 
 others. But the question is, how does Mr. S. intend to apply it in actual 
 practice ? And here facts compel us to say, we have reason to believe that 
 with him “ the Redeemer’s kingdom” means the Episcopal church, and that 
 any evil appearing to threaten Episcopacy, would rouse him to make the 
 necessary counteracting efforts. We do not impeach his honesty in this, 
 nor do we suppose that he considered us as having no part in the Redeem¬ 
 er’s kingdom because we are out of the pale of the episcopal church; but 
 his church principles require him to regard Episcopacy as essential to the full 
 development and extension and glory of Christianity, and therefore any 
 attempt to ward off evils from Episcopacy is to endeavor to preserve the 
 Redeemer’s kingdom from detriment. He, therefore, would have no diffi¬ 
 culty in opposing us, although he might allow that we are good men, and 
 doing good, provided he believed that our labors tend to bring the episcopal 
 form of government into danirer. In such a case, it would matter not to 
 him, that we receive and preach the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ unmixed 
 with any important error, so long as he felt that our measures were sub¬ 
 versive of the episcopal form and order. Thus, his motives may be as 
 pure as were those of Saul of Tarsus, who verily thought that he was doing 
 God service by persecuting the Church of Christ; but like him, his zeal 
 may be entirely misapplied, and e.xceedingly injurious in its results. 
 
 Acting on this principle, he used the Herald as he did. Acting on the 
 same principle, no doubt, he, some months subsequei tly, represented to 
 another pious native, as the individual himself told us, that some of our 
 
 * We knoiu that at that very time the disaffected individuals were frequently at Mr. 
 Southgate’s house. 
 
38 
 
 books are very pernicious; pointing out one in particular, in -which the 
 doctrine of justification by faith alone, without the deeds of the law, is 
 very plainly inculcated.Acting on the same principle, probably, he 
 showed to the Syrian bishop of Mosul, who has been for some years in 
 Constantinople, a portion of one of Mr. Hinsdale’s published journals or 
 letters, where Mr. H. speaks of the superstitions of the Jacobite church; 
 Mr. Southgate at the same time remarking to the bishop something to this 
 effect; “ You see how those missionaries blacken your church.” We have 
 this on the authority of Mr. Laurie. From all this, it is evident that the 
 apologist for Mr. Southgate, whose article in the New York Observer has 
 already been alluded to, was mistaken when he said that “ the only act of 
 seeming hostility on the part of Mr. S. was the reading to a pious Arme¬ 
 nian, a friend of the missionaries of the American Board, &c. an article 
 from the Missionary Herald.” While that act and the consequences of it 
 were still fresh in his mind, he endeavored to prejudice the mind of another 
 friend of the missionaries,” as we have stated above, by representing to 
 him that some of our books are of a pernicious tendency. Fortunately 
 that friend was enlightened and stable enough to resist such attacks; but if 
 his mind had become soured, like the others, and he, like them, had turned 
 against us, and joined Mr. S. in his views of the pernicious tendency of 
 our books and our meetings, no doubt Mr. S., if called upon by us to ex¬ 
 plain his conduct, would have said, that he had no intention of injuring us, 
 and was actuated by perfectly pure motives in what he had done. And he 
 might have added, (though we confess that we do not see with what face 
 he could have said it the second time,) that he supposed the individual, to 
 whom he had thus spoken in regard to our books, was a friend of ours, and 
 would make no bad use of wFat he said. If we allow that in the first in¬ 
 stance he, through want of proper reflection of what might be the conse¬ 
 quences, communicated that article in the Herald to those whom he thought 
 to be stable friends of ours, w’e should have expected to see in him some 
 marks of sorrow at the results, and some disposition to repair the injury 
 that had followed. What then shall we say when, instead of this, we find 
 that those very men whom he has thus disaffected, and who are using their 
 utmost influence against us, are on terms of the greatest intimacy with 
 him ; that he speaks approvingly of their course; and that he actually be¬ 
 comes so far connected with them, as to send the adopted son of one of 
 them, who was a member of our seminary at the time, to America to be 
 educated by the Episcopalians. And what must we think when, a few 
 months afterwards, we learn, that with the consequences of his former in¬ 
 discretion in speaking thus to our friends fresh in mind, he makes another 
 attempt, in another quarter, to work upon the mind of another friend^ by 
 representing our books to be heretical and dangerous ! In our sober judg¬ 
 ments we must say, that we think it will be difficult for him to satisfy any 
 candid mind that he is not deliberately and designedly working against us. 
 The individual upon whom the last attempt was made, it is true, is a 
 Greek; and Jest a resort should be had to this fact in order to shield Mr. S. 
 from the charge of hostility to ws,—the Greeks being considered as more 
 properly belonging to his sphere,—we will say, that this brother has been 
 employed by us, in different departments of labor, but chiefly as a trans¬ 
 lator, ever since the Constantinople station was first established. Being a 
 pious man, he is naturally drawn more to the Armenians than to his own 
 people ; and in fact he is much among them, laboring for their good, and 
 his influence over them is exceedingly important. From his long and well- 
 linown connection with us, and from his personal character, there is not an 
 
 * This tract was written by the Rev. Mr. Johnston, and it is considered by ns as 
 one of our best tracts, and contains a most lucid view of the great doctrine of the 
 Reformation —salvation by faith tcithout the deeds of the law. We may add that it has 
 been examined arid approved by the Committee of the American Tract Society, of 
 wdiich Dr. Milnor is a member. Mr. Southgate remarked to our Greek friend, “ The 
 doctrine of that tract is not the doctrine of your church, nor mine.” The Greek re¬ 
 plied, “ The standards both of your church and mine inculcate that doctrine.” 
 
39 
 
 individual among all our Armenian acquaintances, who could exert so 
 extensive an influence agaiust us in the Armenian community as he could, 
 if he should by any means get his mind piejudiced. Mr. S. is perfectly 
 well acquainted with his standing and influence. And besides, though he 
 had been a common Greek, having no connection with us, and Mr. S. had 
 made such remarks to him against our books, though the consequences of 
 his laboring against us would have been less to be dreaded, yet the evidence 
 of Mr. S.’s hostility to our labors would not have been less convincing. 
 For no candid man can perceive the least real difference between an effort 
 on the part of Mr. S. directly to prejudice the iVrmenians, and an attempt 
 to do so through the agency of a Greek. 
 
 Mr. S., as you will perceive, makt-s it a point of great importance to 
 establish it as a fact, and to draw from us a concession of the fact, that his 
 motives in that particular act of translating the Herald to the Armenians, 
 were good, and that he had no personal feelings of hostility to us. And he 
 makes much of the fact that some of us did, in so many words, acknowl¬ 
 edge our satisfaction on this point, at our conference. In regard to this we 
 would say, that we do not see v/hat real advantage it is to him for us to 
 allow that personally he is not our enemy, or that we believe that he thinks 
 he is doing God service in opposing our labors. It may often happen, that 
 political and theological antagonists are personal ft lends. The simple 
 question between us is, whether he has actually and from design (what¬ 
 ever may be the motive,) opposed our labors; and of this, we think there 
 are conclusive proofs. And if, at the conference alluded to by him, any of 
 us were satisfied by his plausible statements, that he performed the act in 
 question rather inadvertently, and not with a positively hostile intent; we 
 must say, that the manner in which he fulfilled his promise of endeavoring 
 to repair the injury he had made, and his whole subsequent course, have 
 effectually removed every such impression from our minds. As a matter of 
 fact, however, we were never satisfied with the explanations he then made, 
 and of this we abundantly assured him at the time. It remains to be seen 
 what inference the enlightened public of America wdll draw from the facts 
 in the case, and we are willitig lor the present to refer the matter to their 
 verdict. We might indeed adduce other evidences of his opposition to us, 
 not as individuals, but as non-episcopal missionaries. One of these, which 
 has no inconsiderable degree of weight, is the general impression of the 
 Armenians here. All who know anything about the parties, have a clear 
 and strong impression, that he is inimical to us ; and this they have got 
 entirely from their own observation of the case, for we have, up to the 
 present moment, scrupulously refrained from bringing any charges against 
 him before the people or before individuals. It is not long since another 
 case of temporary alienation from us occurred, in an individual w’ho was 
 for a long time our friend. He was persuaded, by the false representations 
 of those very men to whom Mr, S. showed the Herald, that we are wolves 
 in sheep's clothing, laboring here under a show of much spirituality and 
 sanctity, but really aiming at the subversion of all religion. He joined that 
 party, and for a w’hile made a most vigorous effort to corrupt the minds of 
 our brethren among the Armenians ;—reiterating the oft-repeated stories 
 that we have no regular ordination; that we are Lutherans and Calvinists; 
 that in America we are divided into numberless sects ; &c., &c.* He did 
 not long continue, however, in this w’ayward course, before he became con¬ 
 vinced of his error, and he speedily returned with an humble confession of 
 his fault, and has ever since remained our friend. In a conversation wdth 
 one of us, since his return, he, of his own accord, alluded to Mr. S., and 
 expressed the greatest wmnder that w^e were on speaking terms wdth him; 
 ‘Hor,” said he, '‘‘he is one of your greatest enemies.” We inquired what 
 
 * We heard these stories for the Jirst time, immediately after the Herald had been 
 exposed, and from the mouths of those very men to whom Mr. S. translated the Herald. 
 One of them said of us to Mr. Panayotes, “ We thought these men were bishops., but 
 behold we have learned that they are not 2 niests. They are not ordained at all A 
 
40 
 
 evidence he had of that. He said, “ Mr. S. is continually talking against 
 you.” This is only a single case.* We have testimony of a similar kind 
 from many quarters; and indeed.it is a common impression among the 
 Armenians, that Mr. S. has been the cause of all those prejudices that have 
 sprung up against us, in the minds of men who were formerly friendly. 
 Whence did this impression arise It surely never came from us; and 
 we cannot account for it, except on the supposition that there is something 
 in Mr. S.’s mode of speaking to them in regard to us, that leaves such an 
 impression on their minds. Another fact, bearing upon this same point, aud 
 which has hitherto been unexplained, is this ; that just at that very junc¬ 
 ture when the Herald was shown, we for the first time heard from some 
 two or three Armenians, and those the very individuals to whom Mr. S. 
 had translated the paragraph, such chari^es against us as those mentioned 
 above, viz. that we are Lutherans, and Calvinists, and have no ordination, 
 and are dangerous schismatics, &(\ 
 
 And here we must introduce Mr. Badger. He was at that time a guest 
 in Mr. Southgate’s house, and had been for months. We do not know, and 
 of course we shall not undertake to say, just how much of this work of 
 vilification was done by Mr. B. and how much by Mr. S. But the ques¬ 
 tion is brought before us by Mr. S.’s correspondence—Did he (Mr. S ) co¬ 
 operate with Mr. Badger ? And on this point w^e think the evidence is 
 sufficient to convince any impartial jury in the world. We do not under¬ 
 take to prove that Mr. S. sympathized with Mr. B. in all his theological 
 views, or that he was ready to go all lengths wfith him in opposing heresy. 
 On these points, we are not sufficiently informed to speak with any cer¬ 
 tainty, nor are they essential to our present inquiry. Mr. B. came out from 
 England under the patronage of the bishop of London to go to Mosul, so 
 far as appears, for the express purpose of counteracting the labors of the 
 American missionaries there. This is declared by the editor of the London 
 Record to have been his avowed object; and if we are called upon for 
 other proof, we would refer to his w^hole course since his arrival upon the 
 ground, which has been a course of steady and determined hostility to our 
 mission. The evidences in the case are already in the hands of the Com¬ 
 mittee. What we wish to direct your attention to in this place is, that he 
 came originally from England with this intention. Like Saul of Tarsus 
 he came breathing threatenings, if not slaughter, all along the way, against 
 all non-episcopal missionaries. This man Mr. S. received into his house, 
 and kept him for several months, while at the same time he was perfectly 
 well informed in regard to his spirit and intentions.! We have it from a 
 person of undoubted veracity, who w^as present at the time, that Mr. B. de¬ 
 clared that a blow was preparing for the American missionaries, which 
 would cause them to repent of having come out here to these eastern 
 churches. 
 
 Now we have apostolical authority for saying that Mr. S., by treating 
 Mr. B. in this friendly manner, actually became a partaker of his evil 
 deeds. For John says, If there come any unto you and bring not this 
 doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed; for 
 he that biddeth him God speed, is partaker of his evil cleedsd^ It is useless 
 for Mr. S. to say that he opposed some of the views and plans of Mr. B.,. 
 for if he did so, it was in a private manner, while publicly, before all the 
 world, he acted towards him as a confidential friend. Nor will any rea¬ 
 soning convince the enlightened public that he did not, in the main, coin¬ 
 cide with Mr. B., until he comes out with an express and unqualified disa¬ 
 vowal of such a coincidence. Furthermore, whatever agency Mr. B. had, 
 
 * An Armenian, who by some means learned that Mr. Southgate addressed notes 
 to us sometimes, prefixing the title of Rev. which he had understood was given to 
 clergymen alone, expressed the greatest astonishment to one of us, as, he said, Mr. S. 
 does not acknowledge that we are ordained. 
 
 t Mr. S. himselt admits Mr. Badger's hostility to the American missionaries, and- 
 that it was a topic of conversation between them.—E j>. 
 
4J 
 
 in souring the minds of the disaffected Armenians, was exerted while at 
 Mr. S.’s house, and it will be difficult to convince the public that Mr. S. 
 did not introduce Mr. B. to those Armenians, and interpret for him, as Mr. 
 
 B. was an entire stranger both to the people and to their language. 
 
 The facts now stated, it is conceived, are sufficient to establish the point 
 with which we started, viz. that Mr. S. has been a co-operator with Mr. B. 
 And if Mr. S. should reply that while these facts prove a co-operation, 
 they do not show that he co-operated against us, we would answer that we 
 are perfectly willing to leave this question also to be decided by impartial 
 public sentiment. We conceive that it will be difficult for him to satisfy 
 any reasonable man, that having so many points of intimate connection 
 with Mr. B., and having never publicly (if in any way) protested against 
 any of his extravagancies, he regularly parts company with him whenever 
 he begins to say or do any thing against the missionaries of the Board. 
 Taking into view all that we know of Mr. Southgate, we confess that we 
 do not believe it. 
 
 We had intimated in our second letter to Mr. S. that he had translated 
 “disjointed extracts ” from the article in the Herald, and in his third letter, 
 he positively denies this, saying that he translated the whole. At our con¬ 
 ference, he stated distinctly, and we all remember it well, that he translat¬ 
 ed only a part of the article, though wffiat part we did not learn. After- 
 w^ards, however, the individual to wffiom he first showed the journal came, 
 at different times, to two of our houses, and the wffiole of that part of the 
 article referring to a division of the Armenian church was read to him; and 
 when w’^e translated that portion which says that we, the missionaries, 
 could evidently have nothing to do with dividing the church, he was 
 startled, and asked with earnestness if it was so printed. And when as¬ 
 sured that it was precisely so, he said that he had not heard that before. 
 This, in connection with Mr. S.’s own assertion at the conference, led us 
 to charge him with translating “disjointed extracts” from our journal, and 
 we do not yet see reasons to retract the charge, although he now de¬ 
 nies it. 
 
 We would also say, in reference to the paragraph in his third letter, suc¬ 
 ceeding the one above alluded to, that we actually did as he says he thinks 
 we were in duty bound to do. That is, we did make known to you, in our 
 history of the conference to which he alludes, that he declared to us that 
 he did not show the Herald from any bad motive; and also that he did 
 promise to make an effort to repair the injury that had arisen from that act. 
 At the same time we stated that we were not satisfied with his manner of 
 performing his promise, nor are we to this day. 
 
 Mr. S. cannot conceive upon what you based your public charge against 
 him of being the chief cause of the suspension of our meeting, if our report 
 of the affair contained a fair statement of his declaration of innocent inten¬ 
 tion, and of his effort to prevent injury. The fact is, that his subsequent 
 conduct did not increase our confidence in the honesty of his desire to 
 counteract the evil he had done. That his act was the chief proximate 
 cause of the suspension of the meeting is perfectly evident, however many 
 remote causes may have had to do indirectly with the matter. And here 
 we must refer again to the episcopal correspondent in the New York Ob¬ 
 server, who, owing to an imperfect knowledge of the facts, has made some 
 very erroneous statements on this subject. He says, that “ for a long time 
 prior to any act on the part of the authorities, or any supposed interffirence 
 on the part of episcopal missionaries, serious doubts had existed in the 
 minds of the most sober of the Armenians, who had attended the instruc¬ 
 tion of the missionaries of the American Board, as to their influence upon 
 the integrity of the Armenian church.” And again, “That a suspension 
 of the meetings of the missionaries of the American Board had been under 
 discussion among the Armeiiians for four months before this incident oc¬ 
 curred, and that the Armenians have ever declared that the information re¬ 
 ceived concerning the article in the Herald, had no influence whatever in 
 procuring the suspension of the meetings.” We have a single remark to 
 
4-2 
 
 make in respect to these extracts, which is that there is hardly one w^ord 
 of truth from beginning to end, though we have no reason to doubt that the 
 writer of the communication believed he was uttering facts when he penned 
 the article. In the first place there never was any ‘‘ act on the part of the 
 authorities ’’ suspending our meetings ; and in the second place there never 
 could have been a discussion among the Armenians, in regard to the sus¬ 
 pension of these meetings, for they had it not in their power to suspend 
 them; unless the writer means to say that the ecclesiastical powers of the 
 Armenian church were debating how they might put an end to w^hat is so 
 undesirable in their eyes. But this does not seem to be his meaning. 
 The meetings were suspended by ourselves solely^ and in consequence of 
 the excitement occasioned by Mr. Southgate’s act. It is true we felt im¬ 
 pelled by the circumstances to take this step, to avoid what w^e feared 
 would have been more disastrous. We did it wdth the hope of allaying 
 the feelings of those whom, up to that moment, w’^e had regarded as breth¬ 
 ren. But no authority, civil or ecclesiastical, had any thing whatever to do 
 with the closing of our preaching service. After a few w’-eeks suspension, 
 we, at the earnest and repeated request of our former hearers, re-opened 
 the service, and it has continuer! from that time to the present. The asser¬ 
 tion that the exposure of the article in the Herald had no influence what¬ 
 ever in procuring the suspension of the meetings,” is entirely false. As we 
 w^ere voluntary agents in suspending the meetings, and acted in the matter 
 in view of certain existing circumstances, we may be supposed to be at 
 least as well informed as any body else, as to what was the real cause of 
 this step, and our own reasons for taking it; and we here solemnly de¬ 
 clare that the act of Mr. S., in showing that Herald to the Armenians, and 
 the misrepresentations made of us at that time and in connection with that 
 act, were the immediate cause of the suspension. The great excitement 
 produced on that occasion, was occasioned by that act. That the two in¬ 
 dividuals, to whom he showed the Herald, were previously in a state of 
 mind fitted to receive a bias against us, we are quite ready to believe; and 
 if Mr. S. was aware of this, as we conclude he was, from the statement 
 that for a lo7ig time prior to this event, serious doubts had existed in the 
 minds of some Armenians in regard to the tendency of our instructions, 
 and they had been discussing the subject of suspending the meetings for 
 four months previously, then we say he has the greater sin. 
 
 NOTE I. 
 
 Extracted from a Letter dated Constantinople, May 25, 1844. 
 
 [This letter was written with reference to a letter from Mr. Southgate published in 
 the “ Churchman ” of Dec. 2d. The extracts are appended as Notes to the letter in 
 reply to the “ Vindication.'’] 
 
 Mr. Southgate has always been designated by his Committee as a mis¬ 
 sionary, or delegate to the Greeks and Jacobites, and they have carefully 
 avoided speaking of him as having any thing to do with the Armenians j 
 thus leaving the impression on the public mind, that the episcopal mission 
 in this city was not designed to interfere with the mission of the American 
 Board, whose efforts, it is well known, are among the Armenians. Mr. S. 
 himself has also explicitly declared to us, that he had no intention of en¬ 
 tering the Armenian field; although he once gave us notice that some la¬ 
 bors would be commenced among this class of people, in an entirely differ¬ 
 ent department from any occupied by us, and which were not designed as 
 any interference with our field. But if there is any meaning in the letter 
 of Mr. S., extracted from above, it is that he is actually laboring in the same 
 field with us ; for, otherwise, how could he speak of his superior advantages, 
 as an Episcopalian, in gaining an influence with the people, and of our being 
 unwilling that he should avail him.self of these advantages. Surely he 
 
43 
 
 could not mean to say that we have complained of any influence that he 
 has excited against us, either among the Greeks, or the Jacobites, for we 
 have not a single missionary in Constantinople, sent to either of these peo¬ 
 ple. This very letter, therefore, contains a tacit acknowledgement that he 
 is endeavoring to gain an influence among the Armenians. 
 
 In the “ Spirit of Missions” for March, 1844, there is a journal of Mr. 
 Southgate, in which he speaks of calls received, and visits made, though 
 not only are the names of the individuals alluded to concealed, but also the 
 nation to which they belong. To us it is known that some of them, and 
 we think it probable that most of them, were Armenians. This journal, as 
 he says himself, is only given as a specimen of his constant work, and it 
 extends through the period of only one week. It is plain, therefore, that 
 this intercourse between Mr. S. and the Armenians, is not the casual inter¬ 
 course which is sometimes to be expected, between a missionary and in¬ 
 dividuals of every class of the people around ; but it is a studied and pre¬ 
 viously arranged intercourse, the carrying out of a plan of labor among 
 the Armenians. We beg that you will understand, that we do not claim 
 the right to exclude the Episcopalians from the Armenian field, though 
 we think that in Christian courtesy, and Christian wisdom too, they might 
 leave it to us; but we wish to have the fact distinctly known, that they 
 are attempting to cultivate this field, though they carefully conceal it from 
 the public in America. 
 
 NOTE II. 
 
 Extracted from the same Letter. 
 
 Mr. Southgate has been engaged in preparing two works for the press, 
 in the Armenian language; viz. The Church of England Prayer Book, and 
 Nelson on Feasts and Fasts. The expenses of translating and printing are 
 defrayed by the Christian Knowledge Society of England. 
 
 In his preface to the latter book, Mr. S. says, that many people in this part 
 of the world say that all the English are infidels, and that they have no 
 bishops, no feasts, no fasts, no book of prayers, etc., and that this book will 
 show to all such people the falseness of the charge, since, in fact, all these 
 things are found in the English church. But he cautions his readers 
 against the supposition that all Englishmen have the same ground for re¬ 
 butting the charge of infidelity, for he says, There are Englishmen who 
 have none of these things, but they do not belong to the English church.” 
 Whether they are good men or bad, he does not say, but leaves the people 
 to draw their owm inferences. Some have already told us, of their own ac¬ 
 cord, that they understand the persons referred to there to be infidels,— 
 which is a very natural inference from Mr. S.’s language, though there can¬ 
 not be a doubt that he referred to those who are not Episcopalians, and he 
 knew when he wrote it, that in the minds of many of his readers, we should 
 be regarded as the persons referred to. Now we have not the slightest ob¬ 
 jection to being known as not belonging to the church of England, though, 
 in bringing the pure gospel to the people, we cannot see the expediency of 
 publishing, first of all, to them the fact that que>tions of mere external in¬ 
 terest and minor points do divide evangelical Christians in England and 
 America. Mr. S. has been careful to do this on various occasions, and 
 here, in the very first book he has brought forth, for enlightening the peo¬ 
 ple, he again directs their attention to this fact, that Protestant Christians 
 are divided in sentiment! And not only so, but from the manner in which 
 the statement is made, many of the readers of the book will suppose him 
 to mean, that all who do not symbolize with the English church are in¬ 
 fidels.” 
 
 Mr. S. says that he cannct “conscientiously conceal the fact of an epis¬ 
 copal church in the West,” etc. And we know not any one who would 
 wish him to do so ; but is Mr. S. as conscientious in making known the 
 precise nature and grounds of the difference between us, as he is in pub¬ 
 lishing the fact itself'? He is an Episcopalian and we are not, and in this 
 
44 
 
 respect he certainly can claim some points of sympathy v/ith the Eastern 
 churches which we cannot, and we never could blame him for makin;? use 
 of his “ advantages ” in this respect. His church has bishops and a litur¬ 
 gy, and so have the Eastern churches, while we have neither. But while 
 Mr. S. has felt so conscientiously bound to make use of his superior ad¬ 
 vantages ill this respect, has he also conscientiously informed the people 
 how nearly we accord with the standards of his own church, in all the 
 great fundamental points of doctrine? Has he told them that, as to the 
 great doctrine of man’s ruined state by nature, of the necessity of regenera¬ 
 tion by the Holy Spirit, and of justification by faith alone without the 
 deeds of the law, etc , our views are the same with those expressed in his 
 own articles of faith ? On the contrary, has not his conscience been en¬ 
 tirely asleep in regard to our rightful claims to be correctly represented by 
 him, (when he speaks of us at all,) as to the general correctness of our 
 faith, and has he not in fact so spoken of us as to leave the impression that, 
 while he belongs to the true apostolic church, we are to be classed among 
 such as Arians, heretics, and infidels. We do not assert that Mr. S. has 
 actually intimated to the people that we are to be thus ranked, but that he 
 has actually taken advantage of their ignorance, and of their prejudice, and 
 told only half the story to them, so as to leave this impression on their 
 minds. The book he has just published is an example of what we mean. 
 He has there laid claim to belonging to the apostolic church, having bish¬ 
 ops, feasts, fasts, prayer-book, etc. And he declares to the people that we 
 have none of these things. This he did conscientiously, in order to make 
 full use of his “advantage” in being an Episcopalian. But his conscience 
 led him no farther. He did not add, that those men who have no bishops, 
 fasts, or prayer-book, are still true Christian men, who receive the Bible as 
 their only guide, and as to the great doctrines of the Bible, their belief is 
 in the main correct. He chose to leave the people to imagine for them¬ 
 selves what must be our character, and this he did well knowing that their 
 prejudices would inevitable lead them to call us infidels. 
 
 NOTE III. 
 
 Extracted from the same Letter. 
 
 Mr. S. says in the letter quoted, that a knowledge of the fact that we 
 “ are opposed to bishops and precomposed forms of prayer,” “would be 
 ruinous to us among the eastern Christians.” We have already^ shown 
 that we have practised no concealment of our sentiments on these sub¬ 
 jects ; but let us now look at the matter, from the point of view assumed 
 by Mr. S. He assf'rts that we have endeavored carefully to conceal from 
 the people our opinions on these topics, and that we should be “ ruined,” 
 provided our sentiments were known ; but yet he publishes, with his own 
 mouth, that he is doing his best to make known to all the people these 
 very facts, which, according to him, we so carefully conceal, and which 
 will “ruin” us as soon as they are known ! Thus he is willing to sacri¬ 
 fice us, and all the good that may be done by the preaching of the gospel, 
 through our means, for the sake of the advantage of placing himself before 
 the people as belonging to a church that has bishops and a liturgy ! With 
 his eyes fully’’ open to the fact that the course he is pursuing is going to 
 prove “ ruinous ” to us, (according to his belief,) he still perseveres, and 
 thus shows his willingness to “ruin” us, merely because we are not Epis¬ 
 copalians, even though, as he has often acknowledged, we preach the gos¬ 
 pel and are doing good ! Two things appear very obvious from this de¬ 
 claration of Mr. S., first, that in his mind Episcopacy and a liturgy are far 
 more important than any thing else, even than the precious doctrine of 
 Christ and him crucihed; and secondly, that he has resolved to take such a 
 course as he fully believes will “ruin” our mission, and thus he virtually 
 acknowledges all that has ever been charged upon him in regard to inter¬ 
 fering with our labors, while pursuing, as he calls it, “ the even tenor of 
 his way.”