The labours of Eliot, being reported in England, excited great attention, and a society, afterwards incorporated, was instituted for the propagation of the gospel in New England. Among its leading members was the Hon. Robert Boyle, well known by his scientific labours, who was one of Eliot’s constant correspondents. From the fundä of this corporation an allowance of £50 per annum was paid to Eliot in supplement of his moderate salary of £60 as minister of Roxbury.

In 1651 a town called Natick, or “Place of Hills,” was founded by the Christian Indians, mainly through the instrumentality of Eliot, for which he drew up a set of civil and economical regulations. He also in 1653, at the charge of the corporation, published a catechism for their use. This was the first work published in the Indian language; no copy of it is known to exist. In the same year there was published by the corporation in London a work called Teares of Repentance, or a further Progress of the Gospel among the Indians of New England, in which there was given “A Brief Relation of the Proceedings of the Lord’s Work among the Indians, in reference unto their Church-estate, by John Eliot.”

In 1655 there was published in London by the corpora tiυn a tract entitled A Later and Further Manifestation of the Progress of the Gospel amongst the Indians in New England, declaring their Constant Love and Zeal to the Truth, <L∙c., being a Narrative of the Examinations of the Indians about their Knowledge in Religion by the Elders of the Church, related by Mr John Eliot. This work contained the confessions of those Indians that were baptized by Eliot and admitted to church fellowship. In 1660 Eliot drew upon himself some animadversion by the publication at London of a work called 7⅛β Christian Commonwealth: or the Civil Policy of the rising Kingdom of Jesus Christ, which was found to contain seditious principles, especially directed against the Government of England. The statements, however, made in this book were afterwards retracted by its author.

About this time Eliot completed his task of translating the Bible into the Indian language. The corporation in London supplied the funds, and the New Testament in Indian was issued in 1661, shortly after the restoration of Charles I f. It happened that the printing of the work was completed when the corporation was expecting a royal charter. A dedication to the king was accordingly inserted, written in a tone calculated to win his favour It stated that the Old Testament was in the press, and it craved the “royal assistance for the perfecting thereof.” The Old Testament was at length published in 1663. Copies of the New Testament were bound with it, and thus the whole Bible was completed in the Indian language. To it were added a catechism, and the Psalms of David in Indian verse. The title of this Bible, which is now of great rarity, and fetches a very high price, is Mamussce Wunneetupαnatamιve Up-Biblum God naneeswe Nukkoηe Testament kah wonk Wιιsku Testament—Ne quoshkiηnumηk ηαshpe Wuttinneumoh Christ noh asoowesit John Eliot; literally translated:—“The whole Holy his-Bible God, both Old Testament and also New Testament. This turned by the-servant-of-Christ, who recalled John Eliot.” This Indian version of the Scriptures was printed at Cambridge (U.S.) by Samuel Green and Marmaduke Johnson, and was the first Bible printed in America.

In 1680 another edition of the New Testament was published; and in 1685 the second edition of the Old Testament appeared. This last was bound up with the second impression of the New Testament, and the two parts form the second edition of the whole Bible. It was dedicated “To the Hon. Robert Boyle, the Governour, and tu the Company for the Propagation of the Gospel,” &c., and is, like the first edition, a work of great rarity. Eliot received valuable assistance in preparing this edition from the Rev. John Cotton of Plymouth (U.S.), who had also spent much labour in obtaining a thorough knowledge of the Indian language. A new edition of the Indian Bible was printed in 1822 at Boston by P. S. Du Ponceau and J. Pickering.

Besides his translation of the Bible, Eliot published at Cambridge (U.S.) in 1664 a translation of Baxter’s Call to the Unconverted, of which a second edition was issued in 1688. In 1665 he published an abridged translation of Bishop Bayly’s Practice of Piety, and a second edition in 1685. His well known Indian Grammar Begun was written in the winter of 1664, his sons assisting in the work, and was printed at Cambridge (U.S.) in 1666. At the end of this book are these memorable words,—“Prayers and pains, through faith in Jesus Christ, will do anything.” The grammar was reprinted in 1822, with notes by Pickering and Du Ponceau, in the Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, vol. ix. The Indian Primer; or the Way of Training up of our Indian Youth in the Good Knowledge of God; by J. E., was printed at Cambridge (U.S.) in 1669. It comprises an exposition of the Lord’s Prayer and a translation of the Larger Catechism in Indian. A reprint of this work, from the only complete copy known to exist, preserved in the library of the university of Edinburgh, was published, under the editorial superintendence of Mr John Small, in 1877.

In 1671 Eliot printed in English a little volume entitled Indian Dialogues,for their Instruction in that Great Service of Christ in Calling Home their Countrymen to the Knowledge of God and of themselves. This was followed in 1672 by The Logick Primer; some Logical Notions to Initiate the Indians in the Knowledge of the Rule of Reason, &c. These two volumes, printed at Cambridge (U.S.), arc extremely rare. Of the former, the only known copy exists in a private library in New York. A copy of the Logick Primer is preserved in the British Museum, and another in the Bodleian.

In 1611 a small tract of eleven pages was published at London, called A Brief Narrative of the Progress of the Gospel among the Indians in New England in the Year 1670 Given in by the Rev. Mr John Eliot, Minister of the Gospel there, in a Letter by him directed to the Right Worshipful the Commissioners under His Majesty's Great Seal for the Propagation of the Gospel amongst the Poor Blind Natives in those United Colonies. This was possibly one of the publications of the corporation after their charter was renewed by Charles II.; it is of extreme rarity.

In his old age the pen of Eliot was not idle. In 1678 he published The Harmony of the Gospels in the Holy History of the Humiliation and Sufferings of Jesus Christ from his Incarnation to his Death and Burial. This work, which was printed at Boston, is a life of our Saviour with many illustrative and practical remarks. The last of his publications was his translation into Indian of Shepard’s Sincere Convert, which he had nearly completed in 1664; this was revised by Grindal Rawson and printed in 1689.

Eliot died at Roxbury on the 20th of May 1 690, at the age of eighty-six. He was acknowledged to have been a man whose simplicity of life and manners, and evangelical sweetness of temper, had won for him all hearts, whether in the villages of the emigrants or in the smoky huts of the natives of New England.

His translation of the Bible and other works composed for the use of the Indians are written in the Mohican dialect, which was spoken by the aborigines of New England. By Eliot and others it was called the Massachusetts language. Although it is no longer read, the works printed in it are valuable for the information they furnish as to the structure and character of the unwritten dialects of barbarous nations. (j. sm.)

ELIOT, Sir John (1592-1632), one of the greatest among the English statesmen of the reign of Charles I., was born at his father’s seat at Port Eliot, a small fishing-village on the River Tamar, in the month of April 1592. He was the son of a country gentleman of hospitable habits, and of considerable influence, if we may judge from Eliot’s early entrance into public life. Against bis youth no fault has been charged except such as was the natural fruit of a fiery but generous temper, and that it was not entirely spent in idle frolic is proved by the considerable scholarship which he attained. At fifteen he entered Exeter College, Oxford; and, on leaving the university, he studied law at one of the inns of court. He also spent some months travelling in France, Spain, and Italy, in company, for part of the time, with young George Villiers, afterwards duke of Buckingham. At the age of twenty he married the daughter of one of his neighbours, a wealthy Cornish gentleman. He was only twenty-two when, in the distinguished company of Pym and Wentworth, he commenced his parliamentary career, and only twenty-seven when he obtained the appointment of vice-admiral of Devon, with large powers for the defence and control of the commerce of the county. It was not long before the characteristic energy with which he performed the duties of his office involved him in difficulties. After many attempts, in 1623 he succeeded, by a clever but dangerous manoeuvre, in entrapping the famous pirate Nutt, who had for years infested the southern coast, inflicting immense damage upon English commerce. The issue is noteworthy, both as the event which first opened Eliot’s eyes to the corruptness of the Government, and as an example of one of the causes which produced the Great Rebellion. The pirate, having gained powerful allies at court by means of bribery, was speedily permitted to recommence his career of plunder; while the vice-admiral, upon charges which could not be substantiated, was flung into the MarshaLsea, and detained there nearly four months.

A few days after his release Eliot was elected member of Parliament for Newport (February 1624). From the first he perceived that the success of the popular cause required the entire independence of parliament; and his earliest recorded speech was to propose that, as “misreports” were constantly being carried to the king, the deliberations of the House of Commons should be kept strictly secret. In the days of Eliot, such a measure would have carried with it advantages of the first importance; and it was only natural that, in his anxiety to make parliament an efficient check upon the crown, he should forget how necessary was the check upon parliament which would thus have been lost.

In the first three parliaments of the reign of Charles I. Eliot was the foremost leader of the House of Commons. The House was at that time rich in great statesmen. Upon its benches sat Pym, Hampden, Selden, Coke, and many other sincere and steadfast patriots. But, though in profoundness of erudition one or two, but only one or two, may have surpassed him, neither in force of genius, in fire and power of oratory, in loftiness and ardour of sentiment, in inflexible firmness of resolution, nor in personal bravery and self-devotion, had he auy superior, while in the union of these great qualities which made up his rare and noble character he had no equal. The circumstances of his past life also conduced to fit him for his position. Plis official intercourse with the duke of Buckingham, and a certain important interview between them, in which the duke had incautiously unveiled his design of governing without parliament, should parliament refuse submission, had given him an early and valuable opportunity of gauging the character of the favourite; and a bitter experience had acquainted him with the corruptness of the court. Undeterred by any vestige of personal fear, he dared, in plain and uncompromising language, to expose all the abuses which oppressed the country through innumerable illegal exactions of many kinds and through the venality of the executive; and to point out how it was disgraced abroad by a foreign policy directed by the mere spleen of the favourite, and by the gross mismanagement of every campaign that had been undertaken. He dared to advise parliament to demand an account of the expenditure of the supplies which it had voted, and to refuse further supplies till such an account had been rendered. Nay, he dared even to brave the king’s deadliest hatred by naming repeatedly, with direct and sternest invective, the great duke of Buckingham, the all-powerful favourite, as chiefly responsible for the misgovernment of the country. He did not escape unpunished. In 1626, for drawing a bold parallel between Buckingham and Sejanus, he was sent to the Tower; but the House of Commons refused to proceed with any business till he should be released, and, on his release, passed a vote clearing him from fault, In the same year he was confined for a time in the Gatehouse, whence, careless of mere personal considerations, he ventured to petition the king against forced loans. He was also accused of having, in his capacity of vice-admiral, defrauded the duke of Buckingham, who, among his innumerable offices, held that of admiral of Devon, and was supplanted by a creature of the duke’s. And, finally, a sentence of outlawry was passed upon him.

But the very fact that he was thus specially singled out for vengeance by the king only increased the confidence reposed in him by the people. In 1628, despite the most strenuous opposition of the court, he was chosen member for his own county of Cornwall; and he resumed his work with undiminished zeal and courage. He at once advised the House to adopt, and firmly to maintain, the only policy which could be effective, namely, to vote no further supplies till they obtained redress of the grievances of which they complained. He joined with Coke, Selden, Littleton, Wentworth, and others in framing the Petition of Right, and, when the first evasive answer was given to that petition, and men scarce knew what to do foi» w ondering. at the king’s madness and audacity, he fearlessly reviewed the events of the whole reign, and proposed a remonstrance to the king, naming the duke of Buckingham as the cause of the kingdom’s wretchedness. And, on the last day of that famous parliament, when Holles and Valentine held the Speaker in the chair by force, it was his voice which read a protest against levying tonnage and poundage and other taxes without consent of Parliament, and against the king’s encouragement of Arminians and Papists (for it is characteristic both of himself and of his epoch that, though no Puritan, he spoke as strongly against the king’s illegal toleration of Papists as against any other of his illegal acts); and also a declaration that whatever minister should “bring in innovation in religion, or seek to extend, or introduce Popery and Arminianism,” or should advise illegal methods of raising money, should be considered “a capital enemy to the commonwealth,” nay, that whoever even yielded compliance to such illegal demands, should be held accessory to the crime. This was the last speech of that session, and Eliot’s last speech of all.

A few days after, parliament having been dissolved, he was summoned, with Selden, Holies, Valentine, and three other members, before the council. When examined he refused to answer for his conduct in parliament anywhere except before parliament; and he was then, with his companions, committed to “close confinement” in the Tower, books and the use of writing materials being strictly denied. This rigorous treatment was maintained for nearly three months, till Charles found it necessary to give way somewhat to the popular feeling which was expressed by libels against the bishops and the lord-treasurer, and by stern warnings addressed to himself. In May the prisoners were taken before the Court of King’s Bench, when Eliot simply repeated the protest he had made before the council. The case was put off time after time till the long vacation came without its having been heard. Eliot was now, however, allowed to communicate with his friends, among whom his most constant and valued correspondent was Hampden, to borrow books from Sir Robert Cotton’s library, and to employ the tedious hours in writing. He drew up a defence of his conduct, under the title of An Apology for Socrates— “An recte fecerit Socrates quod accusatus non responderit,” and wrote a little book of philosophical meditations, which he called The Monarchy of Man, and an account of the first parliament of Charles I., which he describes on the titlepage as “a thing that concerns posterity ”—Hegotium Posterorum,—and which is of no slight historical value. In February 1623 the sentence was at last pronounced, the prisoners being all condemned to a fine; to be imprisoned during the king’s pleasure; and not to be released till they had given security for their good behaviour, had submitted to the king, and had acknowledged their offences. The largest fine was imposed upon Eliot—a fine of £2000, which, however, he never paid, as he had taken the precaution of securing his property against such an event. Twenty-seven years later this sentence was reversed by parliament, and Eliot’s brave assertion of the independence of parliament was confirmed, never to be again questioned.

The confinement of the other prisoners was gradually made less and less strict, till they were at length allowed full liberty; but Eliot’s spirit, which no weariness or suffering could conquer, disdained to submit where he held no submission to be due, and for him there was no mercy. After more than a year had passed since he first entered the Tower, and the king’s hate had only increased in malignity, on December 21, 1631, the council met to devise new means to subdue his constancy and force him to submission. All admittance to him was now denied except to his sons. Moved into a room which his letters describe as dark, cold, and wretchedly uncomfortable, at length his health gave way, and the doctors prescribed fresh air and exercise. He now addressed the king, having been referred to him by the Court of King’s Bench, to which he had first applied, in a petition, written in simple, manly language, requesting that, for his health’s sake, he might be allowed a temporary release. The answer being that the petition was not sufficiently humble,he expressed himself “heartily sorry that he had displeased His Majesty,” but merely repeated his request with no word of submission. To this no reply was given; and fifteen days after Sir John Eliot had died in the Tower (27th November 1632). His sons humbly begged leave to carry his body to Port Eliot, that he might rest with his fathers, but even this poor request Charles had not magnanimity enough to grant; and, by his express command, Sir John Eliot was “buried in the church of the parish where he died.”

An excellent life of Sir John Eliot, founded upon elaborate study of his papers and of the history of the period, has been written by John Forster. (τ. Μ. W.)