Among the deacons who served the church in its earlier years were John Billings, Hezekiah Belding, Nathan Franklin, Elijah Eastman, Medad Dickinson, Zechariah Hawley and Eliab Thomas.

The first meeting of the Second parish after its incorporation was held June 24, 1783, at the house of John Billings, who was chosen moderator of the meeting. Ebenezer Mattoon, Jr. was chosen clerk and treasurer for the year. Moses Dickinson, Noah Dickinson and Ebenezer Eastman were elected "to perform the duty of selectmen with regard to the parish;" Amariah Dana, John Billings and Moses Dickinson, assessors; John Eastman and Thomas Marshall, collectors. July 7, 1783, the parish voted to raise £50 to provide preaching and to defray other necessary charges.

CHAPTER XVI.

SECOND PARISH MEETING HOUSE. REV. ICHABOD DRAPER, THE FIRST PASTOR.—A LETTER OF DISCIPLINE.-DECREE BY THE GENERAL COURT.

July 28, 1783, Oliver Clapp, Nathaniel Dickinson, 2d, and Giles Church were appointed "to measure the road to find the center of the parish, for the purpose of erecting a meeting-house in the centre, as should be thus formed." At a meeting held a few days later, it was voted “to set the meeting-house in the nearest convenient place to the centre of the parish," and also "to measure from every man's door, to find the centre of travel." A committee of twelve was appointed to build the meeting-house. There was the usual difference of opinion as to where the building should stand. The members of the parish were unable to settle the question satisfactorily. among themselves; at a meeting held Nov. 12, 1783, Dea. Smith of Granby, Capt. Cooke of Sunderland and Mr. Weston of Belchertown were appointed a committee "to affix the place for erecting the meeting-house ", and Dea. Gray of Pelham was to serve as a substitute should any of the others fail to come. The committee selected a place near Lieut. Dickinson's house, about in the center of the common, southeast of where the present house of worship stands. The parish voted to accept the location, and also voted at the same meeting "to provide one barrel of rum and half a hundred of sugar, for raising said house" and "bread and cheese for the raisers at

noon, and a comfortable supper at night." The raising of the meetinghouse was begun on the 19th and completed on the 21st of Nov., 1783, and the first religious service was held in it Feb. 15, 1784.

Early in 1784, the church and parish concurred in an invitation to Rev. Joseph Willard of Paxton to settle with them in the gospel ministry, but Mr. Willard declined. In September, 1785, a call was extended to Mr. Ichabod Draper to become the pastor of the church, and he accepted. The parish offered him £200 for his settlement, £60 for his salary the first year, £65 the second year, and £70 for the third year and each year thereafter. He was also to receive 30 cords of wood annually, "as soon as he wants it for his own firing."

Mr. Draper was a native of Dedham; he was graduated from Harvard College and was about 31 years of age when, Jan. 25, 1786, he was installed as the first pastor of the Second Church in Amherst. He continued in the duties of the pastorate until, on account of physical infirmities. he was dismissed, Oct. 3, 1809. May 29, 1809, it was voted as the opinion of the parish that Rev. Mr. Draper's infimities were such as to render him in a great measure incapable of performing his ministerial duties. The parish offered to pay him his salary and wood as it became due until the end of the year, if he would take a dismission. At a meeting held June 12, 1809, Mr. Draper's reply to this proposition was considered and voted unsatisfactory. A motion was made to see if the parish would. offer Mr. Draper any further pecuniary consideration to take a dismission, and was negatived by a unanimous vote. June 26, 1809, the parish voted to take such measures as seemed necessary to dissolve the pastoral relation between Mr. Draper and the parish. Sept. 13 of the same year, it voted to concur with the church in an offer to pay to Mr. Draper his salary and wood for that year, and $100 additional, if he would take a friendly dismission; if he refused, to join with the church in calling a mutual ecclesiastical council. Nov. 16, 1809, the parish committee were instructed to hire a candidate to supply the pulpit. Mr. Draper continued to reside in Amherst until his death in 1827. The second pastor of the church was Nathan Perkins, Jr., a native of Hartford, Conn. and a graduate of Yale College in the class of 1795. The parish offered him $500 for his settlement and $400 for his annual salary, with 30 loads of wood additional. At a meeting held Aug. 28, 1810, the vote in regard to the sum to be paid for his settlement was rescinded and an annual salary of $500 was offered. He was installed, Oct. 10, 1810, and continued in the pastorate until his death in 1842.

It was natural that the members of the First church and parish should regard with jealous interest the proceedings of their seceding brethren. They undertook, on different occasions and in various ways, to discipline

the members of the Second church, whom they professed still to regard as members of their own body. As an example of the feeling that existed among the members of the elder organization, it is interesting to note the contents of a letter which was adopted at a meeting of the First church, May 9, 1784, signed by the pastor and a copy sent to the "withdrawing brethren." It reads as follows:

"The Pastor and church of X in Amherst to ye Brethren who have withdrawn themselves from ye communion of the chh and who call themselves the 2a Chh. Beloved Brethren:

The sacred obligation incumbent on you and us, resulting from our profession of Xuts and from the solemn engagements which you and we expressly took upon ourselves when we entered into the communion of the chh. and covenanted with each other to walk in the faith and fellowship of the Gospel, and to watch over one another for our mutual and spiritual good, require and constrain us at the present time to make our solemn and serious address to you on the subject of your separation from our communion and the manner in which you effected it. We claim no right to exercise spiritual dominion over your faith or practice, but think it our duty as fellow Christians, as professed Disciples and Servants of one common Lord, whose undoubted right and duty it is on proper occasions to exhort and admonish one another, to remind you of your duty, and of what we judge to be your error and offence. Permit us then with Christian freedom, in faithfulness to ourselves and to you, to lay before the several matters wherein you are, in our judgement, clearly blameable and irregular, wherein you have manifestly err'd from the path of duty, have not walked orderly according to the rules of our common profession, and thereby given just cause of offence to us and to the chh. of Christ.

In the first place you have withdrawn from our communion suddenly and precipitately and erected a separate communion among yourselves, without even requesting our assent, or by giving in regular notice of your intended separation.

In the next place you separated from us, or from a church which had offended you, yet you never dealt with us or with Christian brethren touching matters of offence, never conformed your conduct to the plain precepts of the Gospel-you neither endeavored to heal the breach, nor made any attempt nor used any means, nor allowed any time for reconciliation. You took offence at our proceedings at the ordination of our Pastor, on the very next Lord's Day you withdrew from us and erected a separate worship. However just might have been your grounds for offence, you ought to have sought reconciliation in the use of those excellent means that are clearly prescribed by our Divine Lord. There was at least a possibility of gaining your offending Brethren.

Moreover you have repeatedly rejected our offers of treating the supposed offences in the ancient regular and Christian method of a Mutual Council of sister churches. If your conduct in this sudden separation was good and regular, why would you not come to the light that your deeds might be made manifest?

Lastly, your separation was not only irregular as to the manner, but groundless in respect of the matter. We had given you no just ground of offense, and in our judgment you have made a Schism in the body of Christ directly contrary to the teaching of his Gospel.

Hear us then, Brethren, while we would in the spirit of love and meekness solemnly put you in mind to consider the sacred obligations you have taken upon

yourselves, the Duties you owe to our common Lord, to the church of Christ in general and to this church in particular, to compare your conduct with those duties and obligations, to consider whether you are not in danger of falling within the unhappy description of those that cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ and of incurring the condemnation of those that are contentious and obey not the truth.

Hear us brethren, whilst we earnestly beseech you to retract your error, to do honour to our Divine Lord and his Gospel, by doing all within your power towards a reparation of the injury you have done his cause, and by making such satisfaction to your offended brethren as the rules of Christianity, the precepts of the Gospel, and the order of the church require."

To this communication the members of the Second church returned a prompt and spirited answer, defending their action and placing upon the First church the blame for the differences that existed. As may readily be imagined, correspondence of this character did little towards healing the breech between the churches and their members. The First church refused to recognize the younger organization in any way; conferences were held and the advice of ministerial associations was sought from time to time by the one church or the other. In the year 1788, the General Court having been appealed to for aid, the following act was passed, under date of June 17:

"An act in addition to the act passed in May, 1783.

Whereas further provision is necessary for the support of public worship, in the said town of Amherst, and to promote the peace and mutual good will of the inhabitants thereof.

Be it therefore Enacted by the Senate & House of Representatives in General Court assembled & by the authority of the same, that the inhabitants of the said town of Amherst, shall be taken and considered as belonging to that Parish, in the said town, where they have usually attended public worship for the term of one year, next before the passing of this Act, and that in future the inhabitants of the said town, with their heirs and successors, shall have liberty to attend public worship at that Parish in the said town, which they shall prefer, and shall pay parochial taxes where they shall so attend, they producing to the respective Assessors, a Certificate from the minister of the Parish to which they shall remove, or from the Parish Clerk, in case there be no minister, that they have generally attended public worship there, for the space of one whole year together, next preceding the date of such certificate; and previous to such removal, entering their names, expressing their intention, with the Clerk of the Parish from which they shall remove.

And be it further Enacted by the authority aforesaid, that all taxes or arrears of taxes, which have been assessed in consequence of and agreeably to the incorporation Act of the said second Parish, shall be collected in the same manner, as if this Act had not been made: Provided that the sons of the inhabitants of the second Parish, that have been taxed by the first Parish, and those who have removed into the said town, and have attended worship at the second Parish, and have been taxed by the first Parish, shall not be held to pay such assessments.

And be it further Enacted by the authority aforesaid, that any person removing into said town, may attend public worship, and pay parochial taxes at either Parish, he entering his name with the Clerk thereof, for that purpose.

And be it further Enacted by the authority aforesaid, that the real estate owned by non-resident proprietors, shall be taxed for the use of the parish where the occupier belongs, according to the regulations aforesaid: and if there be no occupier who is an inhabitant in said town, then the taxes of it shall be paid to the Parish, which such proprietor shall direct."

CHAPTER XVII.

HARD TIMES FOLLOWING THE REVOLUTION.-CAUSES LEADING TO THE SHAYS REBELLION.-HEAVY TAXATION.-LEGAL TROUBLES.MOB LAW AT NORTHAMPTON.-NEIGHBORHOOD CONTENTIONS. -ARRAIGNMENT OF GOVERNMENT BY HATFIELD CONVENTION.

At the close of the war of the Revolution Massachusetts was practically bankrupt; the same was true of the towns in the state and of many of their inhabitants. The war had been fought and won on promises to pay, and now that the struggle was over and the time for redemption of these promises drew near, there was nothing in the public treasury and but little in private strong-boxes to satisfy the demands of creditors. The Continental currency had depreciated until it was worth little more than the intrinsic value of the paper it was printed on. To redeem its promises to the national government the state must have money; whence could it be obtained? Commerce was practically extinct; the fisheries, which had been a mine of wealth for many years, had been neglected; the whale fishery, which at the beginning of the war had employed 150 vessels and yielded an annual revenue through the island of Nantucket alone of £167,000, at the close of the struggle employed but 19 vessels; manufactures were as yet in their infancy; agriculture, the leading pursuit of the people, had declined in proportion as larger numbers of able-bodied citizens were required for military service. The state must raise the money it needed by a tax upon the towns; the latter were but ill prepared to stand a further drain on their scanty resources. When the inhabitants of Amherst engaged with their "lives and fortunes" to support the cause of independence of Great Britain, it may be doubted if they fully realized how heavy was the financial burden they were about to incur. They were poor at the beginning of the war; they grew more impoverished each year that it continued, and when it ended there was little save the liberty for which they had fought and endured that they could call their own. The