At about the time mission work began in Turkey, the system of schools organized by Joseph Lancaster of England was attracting much attention, not only in that country but in the United States. This was a monitor system requiring few trained teachers, no text-books, and seemed to command popular interest wherever tried, and undoubtedly afforded a quick and superficial exhibit of progress in the pupils. Lancasterian schools were having a period of great popularity in Greece. They spread to Constantinople and were at once adopted by Greeks, Armenians, and Turks. These had the effect of arousing the popular mind, and awaking a desire for an education. These schools were, for the most part, religious, but not sectarian. They were not long continued by either the Turks or the Greeks, but the seed of learning fell into especially fruitful soil among the Armenians. Another influence had been operating at the capital leading towards this same end. When Jonas King left Syria he wrote a farewell letter dwelling at length upon the needs of reform in the Oriental churches, with many Scriptural references to prove his position. An Armenian bishop, Dionysius, translated this letter into Armenian, and in 1827 a manuscript copy was sent by him to some of the more influential Armenians in Constantinople. The effect of it was remarkable. A meeting was called in the Armenian Patriarchal Church at which the letter was read and the Scriptures referred to examined. By common consent it was there agreed that the Church needed reforming. The well known school of Pashtimaljian was the direct outgrowth of that meeting. It was there decided that no Armenian priest should be ordained in Constantinople who had not completed a regular course of study in that school. This school exerted a strong influence in preparing the minds of a large body of young men to receive the truth and later to become leaders in the movement towards reform. Pashtimaljian himself was an Armenian of remarkable ability and strength. He was an accurate scholar and a critical student of the Armenian language and literature, and, although a layman, was well versed in Eastern theology and Church history. He was equally accurate and thorough in his study of the Bible. His leadership was recognized by the Armenians. He was a friend of the missionaries, but for fear of exciting the suspicions of his race carried on his work independently of them. While evangelical in his beliefs and thoughts he did not, to the day of his death, in 1837, openly declare himself to be an evangelical. But up to that time there had been no break with the old Church and no persecution of those who were studying the Word of God.