The Kingdom of God on Earth: John Eliot’s Millenarian Vision for Native America

Abstract

This study demonstrates that John Eliot’s mission to Native Americans was fundamentally driven by his millenarian understanding of the Kingdom of God. In contrast with interpretations that portray his ministry as motivated by cultural imperialism or economic interest, this paper argues that Eliot’s theological vision—particularly his belief in the imminent establishment of Christ’s earthly reign—was the primary impetus for his work. Through a close analysis of Eliot’s writings, including post-Restoration texts, this research reveals his consistent adherence to millenarianism across time. The findings are summarized in three key points: First, Eliot’s millenarianism is evident in his references to the kingdom of God, which he understood as opposed to earthly powers, governed by the Word of God, and advanced through human responsibility. Second, millenarianism not only initiated but also sustained his Indian mission beyond 1660. Third, Eliot’s millennial beliefs shaped his ethical posture toward Native Americans, contributing both to the disruption of traditional tribal structures and to his advocacy for Native protection during Metacom’s War.

1. Introduction

This study aims to demonstrate that John Eliot’s primary motivation for his mission to Native Americans was rooted in his millenarian convictions. Through close textual analysis of Eliot’s writings, it seeks to substantiate this claim and to critically assess competing interpretations that attribute his mission to personal or political motives, particularly the dismantling of traditional indigenous cultures. In particular, this study focuses on Eliot’s articulation of the kingdom of God and its implications for his missionary, political, and ethical practices.

Historically, John Eliot, frequently lauded as “the Apostle of the Indians” (Keeble 1974, p. 117), enjoyed a revered status for his significant role in the evangelical outreach to the native population, often depicted as acting with altruistic intent (Holstun 1983, p. 136; Beeke and Jones 2012, pp. 784–86).1 However, Francis Jennings sought to challenge the prevailing view of Eliot as a benevolent missionary, contending instead that Eliot’s missionary endeavors were unjust and rooted in imperialistic aims, resulting in cultural oppression and forced assimilation. Jennings discerned a notable temporal correlation: in 1643, the year Eliot began studying Indian languages, Harvard College also launched fundraising efforts to support indigenous language instruction and missions. Moreover, Mary Armine’s commitment to contribute twenty pounds annually, though initiated in 1644, gains significance when viewed within this historical context (Jennings 1975, p. 233). By drawing upon this temporal alignment, Jennings postulated that financial incentives may have played a pivotal role in shaping Eliot’s missionary pursuits.

Jennings further points to political pressures that shaped the Puritan impulse toward Native evangelization. He argued that Samuel Gorton’s challenge from Narragansett Bay posed a direct threat to Massachusetts, alleging their defiance of English authority. In response, Massachusetts leaders sought to counter Gorton’s accusations and enhance their reputation in England by portraying themselves in a more favorable light. They viewed missions to convert Native Americans as a means to achieve this goal. Jennings contends that the timing of Eliot’s preaching to the Indians, particularly starting at Dorchester Mill, was strategically calculated to serve this purpose (Jennings 1975, pp. 236–39). His analysis of Eliot’s economic and political objectives led him to condemn Eliot’s imperialistic engagement with Indigenous peoples as an effort to assert control and erase their cultural identity.2

In contrast, recent scholarship offers a more nuanced interpretation of Eliot’s motivations. As Bonnie Lewis emphasizes, American Indians were not merely passive victims of white cultural aggression; many actively embraced aspects of Christian civilization (Lewis 2001, p. 26). Moreover, while scholarly attention remains focused on New England’s and Eliot’s efforts to assimilate the once free-roaming Algonquians into “a newly gridded, enclosed, and rationalized New England landscape,” (Holstun 1983, p. 132), certain voices suggest understanding Eliot’s actions through the lens of millenarianism rather than solely critiquing them from an ethical standpoint by re-examining primary sources (Cf. Ronda 1977; Axtell 1995, pp. 120–21). Notably, Richard Cogley, following the earlier work of Sidney Rooy and James De Jong, has advanced the view that Eliot’s mission should be understood within a millenarian framework (Rooy 1965, pp. 156–241; De Jong 1970, pp. 34–78; Cogley 1990, p. 87; Cf. Maclear 1975, pp. 243–39). Yet Cogley’s analysis leaves two significant gaps: first, it does not sufficiently prioritize millenarianism as Eliot’s primary motivation, and second, it assumes that Eliot’s millenarian views waned after the 1660 Restoration, thereby neglecting his post-Restoration writings (Kim 2012, pp. 67–68).

This study addresses these gaps by arguing that millenarianism remained a central and enduring motivator of Eliot’s mission, even after the Restoration. Furthermore, it contends that Eliot’s millennial convictions shaped not only his theological outlook but also his ethical stance toward Indigenous peoples. This study is structured into three sections. First, it explores how Eliot understood the concept of the kingdom of God, a central aspect of millenarianism. Second, it examines how Eliot’s millennial ideas informed his approach to Indian ministry, challenging the view that his millenarianism underwent a significant transformation post-Restoration. Finally, it investigates how Eliot’s millenarianism shaped his ethical perspective and influenced his attitudes toward Native Americans.

2. John Eliot’s Millenarianism

2.1. Defining Eliot’s Millenarianism

To understand Eliot’s millenarian ideology, it is necessary first to define millenarianism clearly and establish criteria for identifying this framework within his writings. Jeffrey Jue highlights that previous studies of seventeenth-century Puritan millenarianism have often mischaracterized it by grouping together all revolutionary movements that employed apocalyptic language or promoted a vision of progress toward a perfect society under the umbrella of millenarianism (Jue 2008, pp. 259–60). Jue argues that seventeenth-century millenarianism should be understood through the concepts and terms familiar to the millenarians themselves.3 Millenarianism, as described in Revelation 20, is an eschatological belief in a future millennium, a thousand-year period of blessedness described in Revelation 20. Millenarians believed that Christ’s earthly kingdom would be established as a fulfillment of the prophetic vision in Revelation (Jue 2008, p. 260; Cross and Livingstone 2005, p. 1093). Eliot’s understanding of the millennium aligns with the establishment of the kingdom of God/Christ.

Eliot’s millenarianism was significantly influenced by John Cotton’s eschatological ideas, particularly those presented in Cotton’s early lectures on Revelation and Canticles (Kim 2012, pp. 49–50). Cotton advocated for the advent of the millennium as the establishment of the “kingdom of Christ,” characterized by the restoration of a primitive polity governed by divine direction.4 This connection between the millennium, the establishment of “Christ’s kingdom,” and the restoration of “divine rule” is reflected in Eliot’s early letters to Edward Winslow. For instance, in his letter of 8 May 1649, Eliot interpreted the events surrounding the execution of Charles I in January 1649 as signs preceding “the glorious coming of Christ”—that is, the millennium—during which Christ would “set up his kingdom” and “rule” according to the Word of God.5

In summary, for Eliot, the millennium signified “the establishment of the kingdom” ruled by Christ, based on the Word of God. This idea is further emphasized in his letter to Winslow on 29 December 1649, which will be analyzed in detail later. Therefore, we can define Eliot’s millenarianism as an eschatological belief in the future kingdom of God/Christ. To discern millenarian ideology in Eliot’s writings, we should trace his references to the “kingdom of God,” a central theme that encapsulates his millenarian vision.

2.2. Eliot’s Understanding of the Kingdom of God

As previously discussed, the phrase “kingdom of God/Christ” epitomizes Eliot’s millenarianism. Eliot frequently mentions the kingdom of God throughout his writings. This raises an important question: What does Eliot actually mean by the kingdom of God? Rooy contends that for Eliot, the kingdom of God meant that all of God’s people were under divine governance in this world (Rooy 1965, p. 229). While accurate, this interpretation captures only part of Eliot’s complex vision. Hence, this section attempts to delve deeper into Eliot’s understanding of the kingdom, with the goal of illuminating his millennial aspiration.

2.2.1. The Kingdom of God in Opposition to Earthly Powers

Eliot fundamentally perceives the concept of the kingdom of God as directly opposed to earthly powers. Cogley correctly notes that Eliot ascribes profound global significance to the execution of Charles I (Cogley 1990, p. 77). This act of regicide, Eliot contends, signifies the universal dissolution of monarchical institutions.6 According to him, the dismantling of earthly kingship must be pervasive, paving the way for divine governance. This conviction is articulated in his 1653 letter to Cromwell, wherein he delineates Christ’s intention to establish His own kingdom in lieu of deposed earthly powers, thereby subjecting the entire world to divine authority. He writes as follows: “To raise up His own Kingdom in the room of all Earthly Powers which He doth cast down, and to bring all the World subject to be ruled in all things by the Word of His mouth.”7

Eliot’s fervent aspiration for this ideal world is further expounded upon in The Christian Commonwealth, where he envisions a future in which all political institutions not aligned with Scripture would be dismantled. In the preface, he states that the saints are praying for “the downfall of … all humane Powers, Polities, Dominions, and Government.” He continues: “We wait for the coming of the kingdom of the Lord Jesus, who…will reign over all the Nations of the earth in due time [emphasis added].”8 In summary, for Eliot, the kingdom of God was not merely symbolic or future-oriented; it was a divinely ordered reality that would supplant all corrupt human regimes and establish universal rule under Christ (Cf. Maclear 1975, p. 238).

2.2.2. The Kingdom of God Ruled by the Word of God

Eliot envisions the kingdom of God as fundamentally distinct from earthly kingdoms, being governed not by human authority but by the Word of God. He maintains that this divine kingdom can be realized on Earth when people live in accordance with the Scriptures. This vision lies at the heart of his ministry and first emerges in his October 1649 letter, later published in The Light Appearing. There, he affirms that the Indians “shall be wholly governed by the Scriptures in all things both Church and State [emphasis added]” (Clark 2003, pp. 191–92).

Natalie Spar observes that Eliot uses similar language in his later work, The Christian Commonwealth (Spar 2018, p. 39). She notes that this work outlines what Eliot considers the “Scripture-Platform of Government.” (Spar 2018, p. 48) In the preface, Eliot declares that God has called England “not to search humane Polities and Platformes of Government” but to “enquire at the Word of his mouth, what Platforme of Government he hath therein commanded and prescribed [emphasis added].”9 Strikingly, the goal of following this divine rule is to see “the peaceable Kingdom of Christ” emerge, with the Lord as their “King” in his kingdom.10 This idea is succinctly stated early in the preface: “And then Christ reigneth, when all things among men, are done by the direction of the word of his mouth; his Kingdom is then come amongst us.”11

This same idea also appears in his preface to the 1660 edition of Thomas Thorowgood’s Jewes in America, titled The Learned Conjectures. Here, Eliot envisions ideal governments as being “ruled in all things by word of [the Lord’s] mouth,” recognizing no other lord or law-giver but the Lord alone, who is “the King.”12 This thought reappears in 1663 when Eliot wrote to Richard Baxter with the news that the entire Bible for the Indians was at the press (Clark 2003, p. 430). Sehr aptly points out that as a millennialist, Eliot believed that the kingdom would only come when all human institutions conformed to Scripture (Sehr 1984, pp. 198–99). In summary, Eliot views the kingdom of God as a divine realm where God’s people are governed by His Word.

2.2.3. The Kingdom of God Established by Human Responsibility

For Eliot, the arrival of the kingdom also depends on human agency and responsibility. He believes that “human and rational means are to be used in promoting God’s works among mankind.” (Trumbull 1859, p. 484). According to Eliot, humans bear the responsibility for advancing the kingdom and must actively govern this world. Christ will be said to reign on Earth when His followers hold positions of power and base their decisions solely on the Word of God (Sehr 1984, p. 190). This perspective is evident in a letter Eliot wrote to Winslow in July 1648, where he expressed that the saints were destined to “set up the longed-for, prayed-for, and desired kingdom of the Lord Jesus.” In “Tears of Repentance,” Eliot encourages Cromwell, suggesting that God has positioned him so that “the Word of Christ might rule all.”13 This theme is also present in The Christian Commonwealth, where Eliot argues that English law could be harmonized with Scripture, anticipating the fulfillment of the millennium (Cf. Cogley 1999a, p. 78). He states that “to demonstrate the equity of all the wholesome and wise laws of England by the Word of God” is a noble work for “the labours of the best Divines and the best of Men [emphasis added].”14

In The Christian Commonwealth, Eliot repeatedly underscores human responsibility in achieving the millennial kingdom. Particularly in his references to the term “duty,” which appears nine times, he emphasizes the Christian obligation to prepare for Christ’s reign during the “wait for the coming of the Kingdom of the Lord.” In summary, to bring Christ’s reign to Earth, the saints must take responsibility for ensuring that the world is governed by the Word of God. As will be seen below, Eliot’s evangelizing ministry toward the Indians is part of this responsibility.

3. The Role of Millennial Vision in Eliot’s Indian Ministry: A Prime Motivator

In previous sections, we examined Eliot’s conception of the kingdom of God as integral to his millenarian beliefs. Here, we explore how this understanding shaped his ministry to Native Americans. We aim to demonstrate that Eliot’s mission was not a political or strategic afterthought but a theological endeavor grounded in his belief that evangelizing the Indians was integral to ushering in Christ’s kingdom on Earth, even after the Restoration.

3.1. Initial Interest in Indian Ministry

At first glance, it appears that one of the primary motivations for the Puritans’ migration, as described by John Winthrop and John Cotton, was to evangelize Native Americans. In 1629, Winthrop stated, “It is the revealed will of God that the Gospell should be preached to all nations, and though we know not whether those Barbarians will receiue it at first or noe, yet it is a good worke to serue Gods providence in offering it to them.”15 Similarly, Cotton in his farewell sermon emphasized the goal of converting the Indians: “winne them (the Indians) to the love of Christ, for whom Christ died. They never yet refused the Gospell…”16

However, as Do Hoon Kim observes, these rhetorical declarations were not matched by substantial evangelistic efforts in the early years of colonization. In fact, early Puritan settlers appear to have shown limited practical interest in Indian conversion (Kim 2012, pp. 34–56). In 1649, Thomas Mayhew Jr., known for his missionary work in Massachusetts, lamented in The Glorious Progress that even 30 years after the Mayflower’s arrival, the Indians remained ignorant of God.17 Richard Mather, a prominent Puritan preacher in Massachusetts who was also influenced by millenarianism (Beeke and Jones 2012, p. 782), echoed this idea in 1653, noting in Tears of Repentance that Puritans initially neglected Indian conversion.18

John Eliot’s initial intentions for immigration similarly did not focus on Indian missions. As Cogley observes, Eliot’s early confessions of his purpose for emigration lacked any mention of such a mission (Cogley 1999b, p. 3). Indeed, it was not until 1646, fifteen years after his arrival in New England, that Eliot began evangelizing the Indians, primarily focusing on his ministry in Roxbury. Even as late as 1649, Eliot admitted his limited skills in the Indian language due to his pastoral duties.19 Nevertheless, as we will discuss, Eliot’s devotion to the Indian mission emerged later, strongly influenced by his millenarian beliefs.

3.2. Millenarianism as the Driving Force Behind Eliot’s Mission

Eliot’s millenarian beliefs fundamentally motivated his commitment to the Indian mission. Scholars agree that Eliot’s millenarianism intensified after the execution of Charles I in 1649 (Cf. Cogley 1999a, p. 77; 1991a, p. 170). Sehr argues that Eliot saw this period as a prelude to the millennium and the establishment of God’s kingdom on Earth (Sehr 1984, p. 189). This belief directed his ministry toward the Native Americans, aiming to realize this divine kingdom. This is evident in the titles of his three early tracts, which bore sequentially progressive titles: The Day-Breaking (1647); The Clear Sun-shine of the Gospel Breaking Forth (1648); and finally, The Light Appearing More and More Towards the Perfect Day (1651).

Eliot’s writings explicitly express his millennial aspirations. Cogley highlights this in three letters from 1649, where Eliot states his aim to “set up the kingdom of Christ among the Indians.” (Cogley 1999a, pp. 90–91). In the first letter, Eliot reveals his motivation for the Indian mission, writing that “the Lord Jesus is about to set up his blessed kingdom among these poor Indians.” (Clark 2003, p. 186). This evangelistic aim is further emphasized in the second and third letters, where he explicitly states his purpose of mission as “to set up the kingdom of Christ among the Indians.” (Clark 2003, pp. 192, 195). In 1652, Eliot’s letter Strength out of Weaknesse appeals for prayers and funds to propagate the gospel and expand Christ’s kingdom (Clark 2003, p. 247). Similarly, in Tears of Repentance, he requests the reader of their prayers, and explains his Indian mission as follows:

I beleeve this wheele of conversion of these Indians, is turned: and my Heart hath been always thereby encouraged, to follow on to do that poor little I can, to help forward this blessed Work of Spreading and Exalting the Kingdom of our dear Savior Jesus Christ [emphasis added].

(Clark 2003, p. 262)

Cotton Mather corroborates Eliot’s millennial motivation, noting that Eliot’s discourses frequently centered on “the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ,” indicating that his primary drive was his millennial vision.20 Above all, the conversion of Indians served as a tangible sign of the impending kingdom of God, reinforcing Eliot’s mission.

3.3. Eliot’s Millenarianism Post-Restoration

Cogley argues that Eliot became more accepting of monarchies and sachems post-Restoration, indicating a significant shift in his millenarianism (Cogley 1990, pp. 85–87). However, Eliot’s core millenarian beliefs remained intact. Cogley’s view primarily highlights this political adjustment, overlooking the deeper aspects of Eliot’s millenarianism. As previously discussed, the true measure of Eliot’s millenarianism lies in his references to and ideas about the coming kingdom of God. In this regard, evidence suggests that Eliot’s core missionary motivation remained consistent even after 1660.

Following the Restoration of Charles II, Eliot was compelled to disavow The Christian Commonwealth. The Massachusetts General Court banned the text, and Eliot issued a formal recantation. Cogley and Spar disagree on the sincerity of the retraction. Cogley asserts that questioning Eliot’s endorsement of monarchy is misguided, as he believes Eliot genuinely revised his millennial views (Cogley 1991b, p. 235). Conversely, Spar argues that Eliot’s post-Restoration writings indicate he was still seeking to establish God’s kingdom on Earth (Spar 2018, p. 57). Given that Cogley does not address Eliot’s millennial references after the Restoration, and considering the evidence of Eliot’s continued millennial motivation in his post-1660 writings, Cogley’s argument appears questionable.

Eliot’s persistent expectation of the Kingdom of Christ is evident in his 1665 publication The Communion of Churches. Here, Eliot envisions worship before Christ as the ruler of the millennial Kingdom, anticipating a future “glorious days” when “all the World shall appear together before the Lord in such acts of worship[.]”21 Then, he argues for the necessity of councils in church political structure with the following reason: “promotion of the Gospel and Kingdom of Jesus Christ.”22 In addition, he persuades the reader that accepting the offices of ruling elders and deacons “would much strengthen the hands of Church-government…and they will hereby render themselves great in the Kindome of Heaven [emphasis added].”23 These references underscore his strong belief in the future kingdom of God.

Eliot’s continued millenarianism is also evident in his letters to Baxter. In his 1663 letter, he wrote:

I doubt not, but that it is a divine Work of God, to put it into the Heart of any of his Servants, to promote this Design, which so great and eminent a Tendency, to advance the Kingdom of Christ, which shall be extended over all the Kingdoms and Nations of the Earth, Rev. 11:15. Not by the personal Presence of Christ, but by putting Power and Rule into the Hands of the Godly, Learned in all Nations [emphasis added].

(Clark 2003, p. 460)

These statements echo the same millennial theology present in his earlier writings: the kingdom of Christ, established not only through divine intervention but also through human obedience to Scripture. Furthermore, in his 1669 letter, he reiterated his belief in the realization of the kingdom of Christ, expressing his conviction that Christ will destroy the anti-Christ, come in power and glory, and that the saints will witness the fulfillment of the Word.24

Holstun argues that Eliot’s millenarian thoughts gave rise to his whole writings: grammars, translations, catechisms, dialogues, legal codes, and The Eliot Tracts (1643–1671) (Holstun 1983, p. 130). While his argument may be an overstatement, our observations and the content of The Indian Primer (1669), where he taught the Indians about eschatology and Christ’s second coming for the last judgement and establishment of his “Government in his World,”25 support the view that Eliot’s millenarianism continued post-Restoration. His belief in the millennium consistently drove his missionary work among the Indians.

4. Transforming and Protecting: The Millenarian Ethics of Eliot

Based on our observations above, it is evident that John Eliot was fundamentally a millennialist, with his millenarian beliefs deeply influencing his ministry among Native Americans. Given this centrality, his ethical attitudes during his work with Indigenous peoples should be interpreted through the lens of millenarianism. Although this section revisits the critiques of Eliot’s impact on traditional Indian culture,26 acknowledging that the Puritans’ ministry disrupted Indigenous social structures is crucial. Francis Bremer and Tom Webster note that the Praying Town system, which relocated native peoples, severely damaged kinship structures and undermined native villages’ social and political frameworks. While missionaries incorporated the political authority of sachems, they significantly increased their power within the Praying Town governance, and simultaneously, the Puritans rejected the powwows’ authority, aiming to replace native religious customs with Christianity (Bremer and Webster 2006, pp. 487–88).

However, while it is somewhat true that Eliot was aggressive toward the authority of the sachems, it is essential to understand his confrontational stance in light of his broader millenarian critique of earthly governments. In his work, The Christian Commonwealth, Eliot discusses the fall of “all” human powers and governments not aligned with God’s Word.27 Consequently, his condemnation extends to those sachems who reject the gospel. In The Light Appearing More and More, he contends that sachems’ reluctance to “submit themselves to the service of the Lord” stems from Satan’s endeavor to divert them from seeking the Lord. Notably, Eliot thought that Satan led certain sachems astray, preventing them from accepting the gospel because Satan knew “that the light of the Gospel and kingdome of Jesus Christ will scatter and dissipate that darknesse [emphasis added].” (Clark 2003, p. 204). To summarize, his understanding of the kingdom of God, which is pivotal to his millenarian ideology, led him to perceive the sachems’ rejection of the gospel as inherently malevolent, much like the actions of other anti-Christ figures. Their rejection stood in stark contrast to his Indian ministry, which initially aimed at transfiguring earthly governance into the universal dominion of the Lord (Maclear 1975, p. 238).

While Eliot’s worldview does not justify the confusion he caused, it is crucial to acknowledge that his millenarianism also drove him to protect Native Indians during Metacom’s War (King Philip’s War, 1675–1676). As Travis Myers notes, Eliot was perhaps “the most vocal and active advocate for the just treatment of praying Indians during the war.” (Myers 2021, p. 23). What is important is that his advocacy extended beyond praying Indians to all Native Americans, as Margaret Newell observes in the Records of the Court of Assistants of the Colony of the Massachusetts Bay. Eliot actively engaged in efforts to prevent Native Americans from being kidnapped and sold into slavery, leading to legal actions against individuals involved in such practices.28 These efforts stemmed from his millennial goal, evident in The Petition of John Eliot in The Record of the Colony of New Plymouth, where Eliot expressed as follows: “The designe of Christ in these last days, is not to exstirpate nations, but to gospelize them. He will spread the gospel round the world about re. 11.15. the kingdoms of the world are become the kingdoms of the Lord and of his Christ [emphasis added].”29 Here, it is evident that the reason for his appeal is based on the sake of establishing the kingdom of Christ. In conclusion, John Eliot’s millenarianism shaped his ethical attitudes toward Native Americans, driving both efforts to transform them through the gospel and protect them from slavery. This reveals a complex interplay between his religious convictions and his actions during his Indian ministry.

5. Conclusions

The present study aimed to demonstrate that millenarianism was a central driving force behind John Eliot’s work among Native Americans. Through a close reading of his writings—before and after the Restoration—we have shown that Eliot consistently envisioned the evangelization of Indigenous peoples as part of establishing the kingdom of God/Christ on Earth. Our findings can be summarized in three key points: First, Eliot’s millenarian theology was grounded in a robust understanding of the Kingdom of God/Christ, which he understood in three dimensions: as opposing earthly powers, being governed by the Word of God, and requiring human responsibility. Secondly, our analysis suggests that millenarianism initiated and sustained Eliot’s mission, even after the Restoration in 1660. Eliot continued to proclaim a vision of Christ’s reign in his 1665 publication The Communion of Churches. Third, Eliot’s millenarian beliefs shaped his ethical perspective towards Native Americans, leading both to the disruption of traditional Indian power structures and the protection of Indians from injustices during Metacom’s War. His actions—both reformist and protective—were rooted in a singular theological conviction: that Christ’s kingdom was coming, and that the world, including Native peoples, must be prepared.

The broader significance of this study lies in its attempt to reframe Eliot’s legacy. By attending to the theological vision that animated his work, we challenge interpretations that reduce him to an agent of colonial imperialism. While Eliot’s mission was undoubtedly shaped by the assumptions and limitations of his time, it was also sustained by a deeply held eschatological hope. By recognizing the millennial motivations behind his actions, we gain a deeper understanding of his missionary zeal and ethical stance. Finally, this study opens the door to further inquiry. Future research might explore whether and how Eliot’s millenarian ideals were adopted or reinterpreted by Native converts themselves. The confessions and wills of praying Indians often emphasize salvation of the soul and the promise of paradise, a suggestive indication that Eliot’s millennial vision may have taken root in their religious thought.30