History of Northampton, Massachusetts, from its settlement in 1654;

134 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1063 1664.
the yere ensneing." It was furthermore "agreed that M'"
Eliot is to haiie 50' for the yere ensueing." At the same
time "Ensigne Wilton and brother Strong were chosen
Committees to p'sent the Townes minde to M'" Elyot." The
call was accepted, and in May following it was voted "y*
brother Woodward bee hyred to fetch upp M'' Eliot."
Mr. Eliot Remains Rsv. Josepli Eliot was the second son of
but a short time. Rev. John Eliot of Roxbury, the celebrated
" Apostle to the Indians." He remained in
town but a short time, evidently not much more than a
year or two. At the commencement of the year following
his settlement, "1-(11)-1663" (January, 16G4) the town
voted
"toe gitie M"" Eliote Eighty ponnd to build Mm a house. Also the
Towne voxited to giue him Sexty pound for the yeare eusuinge for his
maintinance and they desier him to acept of this motion and tender and
contenew amonge theme—the meaninge is to build him a house in cace
he setle amonge vs." * * "Deacon Holton and Thomas Bascom
Sen'." were chosen "toe present this there desier toe M'' Eliote."
He evidently declined the offer and this is the last vote
concerning him upon the records. It is not known when
he left town, but there were two elders here in 1665, and he
must have been one of them. He subsequently removed
to Guilford, Ct., where he was settled for many years. In
the history of Guilford he is spoken of as the "renowned
Mr. Joseph Elliot, a pastor after God's own heart. After
this burning and shining light had ministered to this good
people about thirty years, he deceased to the inexpressible
grief of his beloved flock. May 24, 1694."
The Church makes About the time that the church decided to
Choice of a Dea- employ aiiotlier teaching officer, probably at
con and
Elder.
Rulinc; "^
"
. .
the same meeting, it
"^ ''
' /^
also voted to choose a
Ruling Elder and a Deacon. "After Solemn
and extraordinary seeking to God for his Direction
1 There is a discrepancy in the dates of town action conceniiug Mr. Eliot. The
church first acted, -'30-10-63" (Dec, 1663) ; the first recorded town vote is dated "28-
(11)-1663," (January 63) ; then follow votes dated respectively " Aprill 26"i, 1663 " and
" May 3'! (63)." The earlier town records were very loosely kept and meetings are not
entered in their regular order according to dates. It must either be believed that the
town passed all the votes calling Mr. Eliot and arranging for his removal here, and
that Mr. Mather offered to give up part of his salary, before the church moved in the
matter, or that there is an error in the year of the April and May votes. The above
account is based on the supposition that such an error exists.
'