No Greater Service
by Rev. David T. Myers

The godly mother believed in taking advantage of all kinds of spiritual opportunities to instruct her second son in the things of the Lord, even if it meant  a long journey home from church by their horse-drawn buggy.  So she would quiz young Henry on the text and have the twelve-year-old summarize  the long sermon by the Rev. Samuel Davies.  And remember, the latter “Apostle to Virginia” usually preached an hour or two sermon at the Presbyterian meeting-house known as The Fork.  Later, when grown up and active in the affairs of the Colony and later state of Virginia,  Patrick Henry would remember those dozen early years under the ministry of Presbyterian pastor Samuel Davies.  He stated his appreciation for sitting under the greatest orator he had ever heard.

Now by no means are we inferring that Patrick Henry was a Presbyterian.  His mother Sarah was a Presbyterian and a member of the church of which Pastor Davies was a pastor.  Patrick’s father, an Anglican, had baptized young Patrick in the Anglican church, and to that early tradition, Patrick stayed faithful all of his life.  But he was especially friendly to the Presbyterians, who helped immensely the cause of liberty in those early days.

At the second political convention of delegates in Virginia, which began this day of March 20, 1775, in Richmond, Virginia, the issue was anything but clear what to do about the declaration of war by the patriots up in Massachusetts.  The question was, should the citizens of Virginia proceed on a similar war footing, or settle it in a more peaceful way.  The convention was divided.  At a key point in the week-long discussion, Patrick Henry made his famous “Give me liberty or death” speech.  With the Presbyterian delegates from the churches of the Valley backing him up, by a mere six vote majority, the convention voted to advance to a war footing, with arms and companies established.

After the final victory in the American Revolution, Patrick Henry would serve as governor of Virginia for five terms.  It can be said that throughout his long life, the emphasis of the Presbyterian faith taught in earlier times and enforced by his mother, had a great effect upon his life and actions.

Words to Live By:
There can be no greater spiritual service than that which takes place from godly parents, or a godly parent, in the things of the Lord.  Pray and labor much for spiritual instruction to be accomplished at that time.  Claim the general promise of Proverbs 22:6 upon your sons and daughters.

Guest author Dennis Bills, pastor of the Trinity Presbyterian Church (PCA) in New Martinsville, WV, returns today with a most interesting post. This account will likely will be found in Dennis’s pending work on the history of Presbyterianism in West Virginia, which is due to be published later this year. 

John C. Bowyer (1815-1888)
by Rev. Dennis E. Bills

For thirty years, John C. Bowyer was janitor and sexton of the Old Stone Church in Lewisburg, West Virginia, first as a slave, then as an employee. He seems to have been mostly forgotten—the only references I have encountered are found in the Recollections of the Rev. John McElhenney D.D. by McElhenney’s granddaughter Rose Fry (1847-1902) and in “Colonel John Stuart of Greenbrier,” a historical reminiscence by Stuart’s great-granddaughter Margaret Lynn Price (1842-1917). Both Fry and Price called him Uncle, a paternalistic term of honor and endearment by which he was known in the church community.

Dr. McElhenney first rented Bowyer from an unnamed woman and put him to work at the church. McElhenney had once owned slaves himself, but sometime before the war he had freed them and hired them to work his farm at a “fair wage.” After Bowyer’s emancipation, McElhenney paid one third of Bowyer’s full salary in order to keep him on at the church. Fry says he was McElhenney’s “right hand man,” and that “a better sexton, or more reliable work-hand than this yellow man never lived; and grandfather would have considered himself ruined without John Bowyer!”

As the church sexton, Bowyer cleaned the building, opened it for services, lit the fires, rang the bell, kept the grounds, and buried the dead. A search of the cemetery for stones dated between 1858 and 1888 would likely reveal hundreds of graves dug with his own hands. But he himself was not buried there. Around age 73, he was laid to rest in the cemetery across the street from the white graveyard. Fry says, “A simple stone marks his grave in the colored plot, and there were many who thought it would not have been inappropriate to lay him alongside of his white brethren, amidst the dust of hundreds whom he had committed to their last resting-place.”

John C. Bowyer deserves to be remembered for several reasons: 1) Though his work was menial and unremarkable, the community apparently respected him for his faithfulness, longevity, and attention to detail. 2) He served the Church, at first by compulsion and then of his own free will. The record does not tell us what other opportunities were available to him following his emancipation—perhaps there were none. But he “always swore by what Mr. McElhenney said and did, both in the pulpit and out of it. He took his old master’s every word and command as gospel truth, and carried out his instructions to the letter.” Thus it seems he stayed on willingly, out of affection for his pastor and the church. 3) In spite of his three decades of faithful service and the respect it supposedly earned him, he was laid to rest in the “colored” cemetery and eventually forgotten, to the shame of the Church both then and today. The names of most African-Americans from that time and place are lost to history, and few today know they ever lived. If we cannot revive the memory of them all, we shouldn’t forget those we do know. In remembering John C. Bowyer, we remember what little we can of a people who did not deserve to be forgotten.

Mr Bowyer is buried in the African Cemetery, Lewisburg, Greenbrier County, West Virginia. His known life dates are 1815-March 19, 1888.

The End of an Institution

The first issue of The Southern Presbyterian Journal appeared in May of 1942.  Dr. L. Nelson Bell, Dr. Henry B. Dendy and a handful of like-minded men had founded the magazine to combat the liberalism that was beginning to influence the Southern Presbyterian Church [the Presbyterian Church in the U.S., or PCUS].  The Journal began in Weaverville, North Carolina, but later moved to Asheville, North Carolina.  The magazine continued under the name The Southern Presbyterian Journal until 1959, at which time the name was changed to The Presbyterian Journal. This name change coincided with a change of editors. Henry B. Dendy had originally signed on as editor at Bell’s urging. As he stated at his resignation, “the temporary position stretched out to over seventeen years.” Dendy continued to serve as managing editor and business manager as the post of Editor was handed over to the Rev. G. Aiken Taylor. That change was effective with the October 7, 1959 issue (Vol. 18, No. 23). Taylor was committed to continuing Nelson Bell’s agenda:  awakening Southern Presbyterians to the decline of their church.  However, Taylor had a different result in mind.  He despaired of reforming the PCUS and set about working toward a large, non-regional, conservative Presbyterian denomination.

No one was more instrumental in organizing the Presbyterian Church in America, and making it a national denomination, than Aiken Taylor.  Ironically, the formation of the PCA—the Journal’s main goal as far as Taylor was concerned—caused the beginning of a long decline in circulation.  As more and more Journal readers became PCA members, there was decreasing need for a periodical designed to warn of liberalism in the PCUS. Dr. Taylor left the Journal in 1983 [to serve as president of the Biblical Seminary of Hatfield, PA], and he died shortly after his departure.  Dr. William S. Barker became editor, but the Journalcontinued for only a few more years.  Its last issue was that of March 18, 1987.

Pictured above right—the original home of the Southern Presbyterian Journal.
At left, Dr. G. Aiken Taylor.

Words to Live By:
While Presbyterian newspapers and magazines have rarely been financially viable, there remains a place for denominational and trans-denominational news services. The PCA has byFaith; the OPC has  New Horizons; the RPCNA has the RP Witness; and the Associated Reformed Presbyterians have the  ARP Magazine. Whether in print or digital format, these services provide a much-needed connectionalism between a denomination’s churches and members. They can make us aware of ministries and opportunities for service, as well as informing our prayers. In short, they strengthen the necessary connections that undergird each denomination. And for this reason, these publications deserve your prayers and support. Subscribe if you can to the print format, and encourage your church to make issues available to its members. Bookmark the web link and visit weekly to stay abreast of the news within your denomination. Better, visit the other links provided above and get to know your brothers and sisters in other denominations. Pray for them too, for they are your brothers and sisters in Christ, engaged with you in this great spiritual battle to proclaim the Gospel and extend God’s kingdom across the whole earth.

THE SCHOOL & FAMILY CATECHIST, on The Westminster Shorter Catechism.

Q.11. What are God’s works of Providence?

A. God’s works of Providence are his most holy, wise, and powerful preserving and governing all his creatures, and all their actions.

EXPLICATION.

Preserving his creatures.—Keeping, by his mighty power, every living being from returning to nothing.

Governing all his creatures.—God’s keeping them in order, and making them obedient to his authority.

Governing all their actions.—Directing all the doings and motions of his creatures, so as to prevent them from running into confusion.

ANALYSIS.

Here we are taught that God’s providence consists of two parts:

1. The preservation of his creatures.—Heb. i. 3. Upholding all things by the word of his power.
2. His governing his creatures and their actions.—Psal. ciii. 19. His kingdom ruleth over all.—Matt. x. 29. Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father

In answer to this question, too, Divine providence is shown, as to its properties, to be

1. Most holy.—Psalm cxlv. 17. O Lord—holy in all his works
2. Most wise.—Psalm civ. 24. O Lord, how manifold are they works! in wisdom hast thou made them all.
3. Most powerful.—Dan. iv. 35. He doth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?

Our second guest author this week is Barry Waugh, with a post drawn from his own blog, Presbyterians of the Past. Barry’s blog posts tend to be fuller treatments of a subject than what we typically have time to provide here, and so you would do well to add his blog to your reading schedule. What follows is a shorter version of his recent post on Patrick of Ireland. Click here to read the full post.

PATRICK OF IRELAND, 390-461
The next Lord’s Day will occur on March 17, which is the calendar date remembered as St. Patrick’s Day. While the Sabbath is being kept holy by some, the day named for Patrick will likely be celebrated with revelry and little if any concern for Patrick or his ministry. There are only two extant writings by him Confession and Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus. The first work is an autobiographic defense of his integrity as a minister in the face of accusations to the contrary; the second writing rebukes a military commander named Coroticus for kidnapping and killing Christians. These two works provide a more accurate picture of Patrick than do the myths about him and miracles attributed to him. Michael A. G. Haykin’s Patrick of Ireland: His Life & Impact points out that the real Patrick is more interesting than the one created over the centuries by tales and fables. When one reads Confession, it is obvious that Patrick had a command of Scripture and used it to teach the Irish about the Triune God and the gracious atonement accomplished by the Son. Patrick’s emphases on theology proper and Christology are indicative of the difficulties faced by missionaries as they communicated one God in three persons and Christ the God-man to pagans worshipping numerous individual gods. The authenticity is debated, as with much information about Patrick, but it is said he used clover with its three leaves united in one sprig to illustrate the three persons of the Trinity united in one God. As with any illustration of the Trinity, it breaks down at one point or another, but it likely worked well for Patrick’s purpose as he taught the grace of Christ.

Patrick was born in Banavem Taberniæ the son of Calpurnius, who was the son of Potitus. Calpurnius was a public official and a “deacon” (diaconum), and Patrick’s grandfather was a “presbyter” (presbyteri, translated also “priest” or “elder”). Haykin notes that the precise location of his birthplace is unknown, but it is believed to be somewhere along the west coast of England or possibly Scotland. Regardless of his place of birth, Patrick grew up in the church, but the message of Christ fell on ears that were not yet ears to hear. He lived with his Roman-British family until the age of sixteen when he was abducted and enslaved in the land that came to be named Ireland. At the time, the Romans called the island Hibernia or Scotia. Patrick shepherded sheep as a physical slave but was released from slavery to sin by faith in Christ through the ministry of local Christians. While watching flocks he prayed nearly without ceasing and found the Psalms beneficial for petitioning and praising God. Patrick had something in common with another shepherd, King David. After about six years, Patrick managed to escape his captors, made his way to a ship, and left Ireland. . .

. . . Michael Haykin makes the case that Patrick was presbyterian. Note the lower case “p.” He was presbyterian in that he believed in rule by elders. Some Presbyterians of the past agree with Haykin’s perspective, such as Thomas Smyth (1808-1873). Smyth was the minister of Second Presbyterian Church, Charleston, South Carolina for a number of years and was of Irish descent. His father was a Presbyterian elder. Smyth presents his case for Patrick’s presbyterianism in Presbytery and Not Prelacy the Scriptural and Primitive Polity in vol. 2 of the Complete Works of Rev. Thomas Smyth, D.D. Smyth examined the Scripture passages relevant to polity and moved on to contend historically that the Irish were first converted by the missionary efforts of eastern Christianity and not western. The missionaries were associates or disciples of the Apostle John who believed in rule by elders as taught in Acts and the pastoral epistles. Even though Smyth uses the word prelacy in the title of his book, his concern is not only episcopal government as manifest in the Church of Ireland or of England, but also Roman Catholicism. See the section beginning on page 460 titled, “The Primitive Churches in Ireland were Presbyterian,” where Smyth argues for presbyterian government against episcopal and then presents his case for Patrick the presbyterian. But there was another perspective on the polity of the ancient church in Ireland which came from James Ussher two-hundred years earlier. Theologically, Ussher [who is pictured above left] and Smyth would have agreed on a great amount of doctrine because Ussher’s Irish Articles, 1615, and his Body of Divinity provided abundant content for the Westminster Standards. There are portions of the Shorter Catechism in particular that appear to have been lifted from Body (see explanatory note below). But the two Irishmen did not approach their homeland’s polity history from the same perspective. Ussher was Archbishop of Armagh, the bishop of the Church of Ireland. As Smyth made his case that Patrick and Ireland were originally presbyterian, so Ussher defended the nation’s episcopal origins in A Discourse of the Religion Anciently Professed by the Irish and British (Works 4:235ff). Ussher, as Smyth, directs his polemics against the papacy, but then he defends episcopal government for the Irish church. His Discourse goes beyond an apologetic for episcopacy to interact with key doctrinal differences with Catholicism. Ussher and Smyth could agree that Patrick was not Catholic, but debates concerning whether he was presbyterian, episcopal, or Catholic will likely continue. Hopefully, these questions of church government will not interfere with gaining appreciation for an interesting and dedicated servant of God named Patrick.

Words to Live By:
It is good to think of Patrick of Ireland and his contribution to the history of the church, but he should not be remembered with the common “carousing and drunkenness” associated with March 17. Instead, “the Lord Jesus Christ” should be put on in faith with “no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts.” These words from Romans 13:13, 14 confronted Patrick’s contemporary, Bishop Augustine, with his own sin when he responded to Christ in faith. Patrick of Ireland would call the people of Irish heritage and all others to worship the Triune God through faith in Christ on this Lord’s Day.

BARRY WAUGH

Notes— Michael A. G. Haykin’s book is Patrick of Ireland: His Life & Impact, 2014, published by Christian Focus, Fern, Ross-shire, Scotland, which is a selection in the publisher’s Early Church Fathers Series. Other books in this series are edited by Professor Haykin and include Basil of Caesarea, Cyprian of Carthage, and Hilary of Poitiers. Based on my reading of the Patrick book, I would think the other selections in the series would be fine introductions to the church fathers. Present day Christians may be acquainted with Augustine because of his Confessions, but generally speaking, knowledge of the ancient fathers of the church is limited. However, reading books from the Early Church Fathers Series would improve the situation.

If interested in the life of an Irishman who was a Presbyterian then read on this site the biography of Thomas Witherow (1824-1890).

The map section is from the nicely done map located on Wikimedia titled, “The Roman Empire About 395.”

Regarding Ussher’s Body of Divinity, some contend that Ussher did not write it, after all he is not on the title page as author. It was published in London in 1645 which was an opportune location and date for the Westminster Asssembly’s deliberations in the Jerusalem Chamber. Body of Divinity would have been available for composition of the Shorter Catechism which was approved August 22, 1648 (see: Chad VanDixhoorn’s Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 4:780). Ussher was invited to the Assembly, but it is believed he did not attend. However, did he manouver his Body into the Jerusalem Chamber instead? Ussher was likely sympathetic to what the divines wanted to accomplish doctrinally, but he could not physically be present as Archbishop of Ireland under the authority of the Church of England. In 1645, the Civil War was going poorly for King Charles I and his supporters, but there was always the odd chance he could maintain his rule. If Ussher had attended the Assembly he would have done so with considerable potential personal risk.

The Latin edition used for this article is Libri Sancti Patricii, number 4 in the series, Texts for Students, ed. Newport J. D. White and published in London by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1918 (title page pictured above); the English version was translated by White and is titled, St. Patrick, His Writings and Life, which is in the series Translations of Christian Literature, Series V, Lives of the Celtic Saints, and it too was published by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London, 1920.

John Skinner’s translations are in The Confession of Saint Patrick, New York: Doubleday, 1998, and David Howlett’s book is titled, The Book of Letters of Saint Patrick the Bishop, published in Dublin by Four Courts Press, 1994.