AP

Move to Ettrick

Boston first visited Ettrick (alt. “Etterick”), a small village forty-five miles west of Simprin, in November 1706. However, his visit left a poor impression on him. He said: “The desolation of that parish, ever since I saw it, hath had great weight on me, and I am convinced I should have more opportunity to do service for God there than here; but success is the Lord’s.”

Ettrick was an isolated place in Boston’s day, despite having a larger population than Simprin. In 1694, a Poll Tax census listed 351 people. The parish surrounding Ettrick covered a seven-mile radius.

The church had not had a minister since March 1703. As a result, church services had become infrequent, approximately once a month. The path for obtaining a minister still meant going through the “Heritors of Ettrick,” and despite several names being recommended, nothing came of it. When Boston’s name was first put forward, a petition in favour was signed by five elders and several heads of families. The heritor, Sir Francis Scott, raised no objection.

However, in May 1707 when it was announced that Boston would be the minister at Ettrick, several heritors wrote protests, and Sir Francis Scott complained to the presbytery that they had usurped his right of appointment. Boston even overheard Scott’s messenger – a former classmate of his – say about Boston to someone else: “Have you told him that he will neither get meat nor lodging here? I will get up early and close the church doors.”

Interestingly, Boston himself protested against being appointed the minister at Ettrick, as it seems that Scott and the other heritors had promised him support. In due time, Boston’s integrity helped him to find favour with Scott. Notwithstanding all the trials, Boston was admitted to Ettrick in May 1707. He was thirty-one years old, and he would minister there for twenty-five years, until the end of his life.

His first sermon was on 1 Samuel 7:12, “Then Samuel took a stone and set it up between Mizpah and Shen and called its name Ebenezer; for he said, “Till now the LORD has helped us.”” In a taste of things to come, the day on which he became minister of Ettrick, the Union of Scotland and England commenced, which Boston opposed.

The Presbytery of Selkirk minutes, January 1706, mentioning “Thomas Boston Minister of the Gospel at Simprin.”

The first years at Ettrick were hard going. Spiritually, the people were dull and indifferent to the things of God. Boston said that the people, “generally speaking, were naturally smart, and of an uncommon assurance; self-conceited and censorious to a pitch.” He saw that, “They have little desire for the gospel.” Instead, they showed more interest in whatever was popular at the time, and he was shocked at how acid their tongues were: “I was amazed to find blessing and cursing proceeding out of the same mouth… [They were] horrid swearers at times.”

Despite this, Boston trusted that God had called him to preach the gospel in that place: “though it was a small charge, yet it was my charge, and that I was not to look to be useful according to the number of those I spoke to, but according to the call of God to speak unto them, whether many or few.”

Thank God that the spiritual tone did change as God worked through the preaching of His Word.

Schisms

It was during this time that one of Boston’s most testing periods came. It concerned the issue of church separation, and therefore, the definition of the visible church. The Westminster Confession declares: “The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation (WCF 25.2).”

In 1701, John MacMillian (1669-1753) had been inducted into the Balmaghie parish of the Church of Scotland, but by 1703 he was removed over grievances that he had raised against the established Church. In 1706, he became the minister of the Covenanting Societies, which had dissented and separated from the Church of Scotland. MacMillian would often preach around Ettrick, including, at times, undermining Boston’s preaching.

Boston’s first encounter was with three of MacMillian’s followers. Boston did not seek an argument with them, but almost immediately the tone was set: “one brought in the matter of separation; told that he understood I was an enemy to them, and preached against them.” Boston admitted that he did not think that they were following God, whilst also confessing the corruptions that could be found in the established Church. One of them made the serious charge that the Lord was not with Boston. Boston brought them to see that Christ did not separate from the Jews even in time of “great corruption.” In the end, Boston hoped to meet with MacMillian face-to-face, and he later learned that MacMillian was in the same house that day, but MacMillian refused to see Boston.

Within a short time, in January 1708, the situation erupted when Boston called on the Ettrick congregation to observe a fast that had been called by the civil magistrate, and not the Church. The fast was in response to fears of a French invasion, but many in the congregation were upset that a minister would so align himself with the civil magistrate. There were some who deserted Boston’s ministry, “several of whom never returned.” To them, this was an encroachment of the civil magistrate upon them. Boston seems to have sympathized with them to some degree, regretting that the Church and civil magistrate hadn’t worked together in calling the fast. Whatever the case, it sowed further seeds of separatism within many people.

A troublesome oath

Within a few years, a second major concern regarding the visible church and civil authorities was to rear its head. In 1707, following the Union between Scotland and England, an Abjuration Oath was to be taken by all who held military and civil government appointments. Persons taking the Oath were required to declare their loyalty to the Protestant English monarch, as opposed to Catholic rivals. However, by 1712 the Oath was to be taken by ministers in the Church of Scotland as well, and this threatened a division within the Church. There were some who supported the Oath, seeing it as supporting a Protestant cause in the kingdom. But the “conscientious scruplers” disliked the imposition of oaths by civil authorities.

Interestingly, although Boston sided with those opposed to the Oath, at first he seems to have had few feelings on the matter. In fact, he only bought a copy of the legislation in order to find out what fine he might have to pay if he refused to take the Oath. However, very quickly he came to strongly oppose the Oath, saying: “my heart was turned to loath that oath which I had before scrupled.” He realised that by taking the Oath it meant recognizing the monarch as supreme over the Church.

In the end, approximately two-thirds of Scottish ministers accepted the Oath, although many with reservations. Additionally, some of those who refused to take the Oath, accused those who had taken it of disloyalty. One time Boston was at a church service at Wamphray when everyone present was asked to show their loyalty to the National Covenant of the Scots by raising their hands. Boston felt uneasy about this – it was out of place – and he did not raise his hand. By the time King George I ascended to the throne in 1714, the offending clause in the Oath about his authority as head of the Church of England had been softened, and so much of the heat went out of the dispute.

Although Boston was amongst those who would not take the Oath – a non-juror – he did assist at services with those who had taken the Oath. There was an expectation that the government would impose heavy fines on those who refused the Oath, and therefore, Boston signed over his property, at “trouble and expense,” to his oldest son and a trusted servant, John Currie, as a way of protecting his family from loss. In the end, no government fines were issued.

Both the situations with the Abjuration Oath and John MacMillian show the struggle that Boston had with the Bible’s teaching on the visible church, including her relationship with civil authorities. What lessons may we learn from this? Below are some reflections from Boston on the matter:

The Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome – To be quarrelsome, especially behind another’s back, is a grievous sin. To Boston, MacMillian was schismatic. He disliked that MacMillian wouldn’t speak with him in open debate and had instead resorted to mean-spirited attacks. Titus 3:10-11 says, “As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.” In contrast, Paul told Timothy: “The Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness (2 Tim. 2:24).”

In disagreements, human nature tends to the extremes – This was Boston’s observation following a conversation with a minister, Mr Thomas Hoy, who at first favoured separation, but later took the Oath. Boston concluded, “such a propensity there is in human nature to run to extremes.” Whilst Boston opposed the Oath, he did not consider it an issue worthy to separate over. The foundation of his decision was “the holy Scripture.”

Walk by a fixed principle of church communion – The Scriptures define the church; visible and invisible. The spiritual unity of the invisible church ought to be reflected in the visible church. Boston’s observation was that the people of Ettrick held to “an indecent freedom both with church and state.” Whilst not agreeing with everything that the Church did, he did not want to separate unless there was clear biblical warrant to do so. Therein lies the tension. He saw “a need of walking by a fixed principle of church-communion, established from the holy Scriptures.” Separation is sometimes necessary according to the Scriptures, but it is a grievous thing.

Although it was written in a later era, Samuel John Stone’s (1839-1900) hymn still bears true:

1. The church’s one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord;

she is His new creation by water and the Word:

from heaven He came and sought her to be His holy bride;

with His own blood He bought her and for her life He died.

2. Elect from every nation, yet one throughout the earth;

her charter of salvation – one Lord, one faith, one birth:

one holy Name she blesses, and shares one holy food;

as to one hope she presses with every grace endued.

3. Though with a scornful wonder men see her much oppressed,

by schisms rent asunder, by heresies distressed,

yet saints their watch are keeping, their cry goes up: ‘How long?’

And soon the night of weeping shall be the morn of song.

4. In toil and tribulation, and tumult of her war,

she waits the consummation of peace forevermore:

till with the vision glorious her longing eyes are blessed:

at last the church victorious shall be the church at rest!

5. Yet she on earth has union with God the Three-in-One;

and mystic, sweet communion with those whose rest is won:

O happy ones and holy! Lord, grant to us Your grace,

with them the meek and lowly, in heaven to see Your face.

From the mouth of infants and babes

            In this part of his memoirs, Boston shares some short homely stories. On 9^th December 1710, he was “in bad case.” Not being able to sleep, he wandered about his room “in heaviness,” when his “little daughter Jane” whom he had already put to bed, got up and told him that she had something for him to hear. She proceeded to recount Mary Magdalene going to Christ’s tomb and meeting the risen Christ. Boston remembered the way that young Jane “with a certain air of sweetness” recalled Christ’s words: “Tell my brethren, they are my brethren yet.”

Boston recalled: “It took me by the heart.” Despite his heavy heart and troubles, he thought: “and may I think that Christ will own me as one of His brethren yet?” In this way, from the lips of his young daughter, he was encouraged in the things of God.

– Graham Barnes