A History of Some Events in the Founding of the first Reformed Church of Philadelphia
We reopen this inquest into the founding of the first Reformed Church of Philadelphia, "the Old First Reformed Church of Philadelphia," founded then as the German Reformed Church (1727), but whose unofficial forerunner began in 1725 in Skippack. Collusion and slander by later church authorities for the purpose of defending the institution and its officials, Schlatter, Boehm, the Dutch Classis, the later German Reformed Church that merged into the United Church, Harbaugh, Glatfelter and majority opinion sanctioned by institutions and their historians, white washed themselves. Jacob Reiff and the first Reformed Church is a tsunami of hand me down opinions, justifications and scapegoats. What was concluded by those face-saving 19th and early 20th century historians was repeated without question. "The major factor in this church's decline was a dispute that started as an accusation that Jacob Reiff had misused congregational funds while on a trip to Germany for the purpose of raising support for their church. The congregation diminished until dissolving about the 1740's, according to the history of the Reformed Church in America. " Churches and Cemeteries of Skippack, 2005. If you like drama and see in these conflicts the battling shepherds of Virgil and Spenser we give you wilkum.
Windows on 1720-1730 pre-revolutionary Philadelphia are worth seeing through. The issues involved religion, politics, science and art. The longer you look the more you see, and among the undeniable themes liberty is foremost. So something that appears small enlarges with secondary and tertiary waves that permeate the local histories of churches and graveyards.
Brief Vita
Although his father's name, Hans George Reiff, appears on a deed in 1717, the first mention of Jacob Reiff is in the diary of Gerhart Clemens, July 2, 1723, which suggests him to be "a man of enterprise and public spirit" (Dotterer in Heckler Lower Salford, 33) "entrusted by the Colonial government as agent to go around among the settlers to collect partial payments on their lands in 1723, he must have been here some time before, well acquainted, and in the confidence of the leading men" (31).
He would have signed the early petitions of 1728 and 1731, as did his brothers, George, Peter and Conrad, except he was engaged then in two successive trips to Europe. He was out of the Pennsylvania more than three years when the 77 inhabitants along Skippack Creek, asked the Governor for relief in a petition of 1728 from "the Ingians they have fell upon ye Back Inhabitors…whos Lives Lies at Stake with us and our Poor Wives and Children." This petititon might have been better Englished had Jacob been there since he was fluent in at least three languages, German, English, Dutch. Another petition to the Assembly in 1731, signed by the Reiff brothers asked that "they be permitted to enjoy the rights and privileges of English subjects."
The Reiff Church still functioned in 1736 when he and Gerhard In den Hoffen, a previous fellow member of that entity, who had rented his mill to Felix Good, sought a road from Harleysville to Good's mill, which they claimed would benefit people going to the Skippack Reformed church. This petition to the Quarter Sessions Court of Philadelphia on September 6, 1736 was denied when it was determined that "the owners and distances in some cases had not been correctly given" (Heckler, History of Skippack, 7) and that the road would only distantly approach the church. This however may only reflect the same "inaccuracy of early eighteenth century surveying" that bothered Detweiler (v) in his reconstruction of the map of Bebber's Township.
Jacob Reiff served as deputy for the probate of wills from 1743-1748 for the large area of Philadelphia County then including "the interior townships, such as Salford, Hanover, Amity, Oley, Perkiomen and Skippack, Towamencin, Maidencreek, Saucon, Rockhill, Colebrookdale, Worcester, Providence and Franconia" (Dotterer, 31). James Heckler observes that "the object in having a German-speaking deputy located here, was doubtless, to accommodate those German inhabitants, who lived a great distance from Philadelphia and were ignorant of the English language" (Heckler, 31). He spoke and wrote English, German and probably Dutch, since he traveled those five years in Holland. An example of how he may have been groomed by his father for these responsibilities is suggested in his probation of the will of Claus Jansen, first Mennonite minister at Skippack and friend of Hans George. Claus Janson's will, "dated June 1, 1739…was proven before Jacob Reiff, of Lower Salford, deputy register, October 30, 1745" (Heckler, 15). Jansen was a settler in Skippack as early as 1703, a "tax collector in 1718 before the township was organized" (Pennypacker, 30) and one of the seven trustees of the 100 acres Van Bebber gave the Skippack Mennonites in 1725. This was the same trust which Jacob's father, Hans George Reiff witnessed with his signature.
Other fragments of his official duties of those years indicate he probated the will of Christian Allebach "September 10, 1746, before Jacob Reiff, of Salford, Deputy Register" (59).
He witnessed the deed of sale of 100 acres that the widow of John Freed, Christiana, sold to Adam Gotwals on May 10, 1748 (Heckler, History of Skippack, 40) and probably acted officially before and after the 1743-48 period. He acted as trustee for the Dunkard minister Jacob Price, associate of Peter Becker, who wanted to ensure a fair distribution of his estate to his underage grandsons, Daniel and John. Price conveyed 200 acres to the oldest son, Daniel, February 7, 1741 on condition that he pay 600 pounds to his brother or give him half the land. "To secure the payment thereof, Daniel gave his bond for the said amount, and in case Jacob, their grandfather, should die before John was of lawful age the money was to be given to Jacob Reiff in trust for the said John Price. Six hundred pounds was paid to the brother, John, April 3, 1753, who latter signed a release, acknowledging the receipt of the said sum and renouncing all claim to the land" (Heckler, 7).
Jacob Reiff is one of 24 names on the Salford Road Petition to the Quarter Sessions Court of Philadelphia of June 2, 1755 where some landowners on the Maxatawny Road had refused to remove fences and were disputing the width of the road, "which not only occasioned great dispute and quarrels but likewise bloody blows" (The Perkiomen Region, V, 20).
Another example of Jacob Reiff's responsibility in the community occurs in his two year term (with Henry Cassel) beginning in 1770 as armenpfleger, overseer of the poor, which Lower Salford instituted by election beginning in 1762, an appointment administered by Philadelphia County after 1768 (Heckler, 110-111). Sharing both financial help and board, Anna Maria Zerg, for instance, was "kept by the township and 'boarded round' for many years" (Heckler 113). It would be hard to find an established family that did not share their home with her in 1760. She was still being boarded in 1776. Also later in his life (c. 1774-1778) Jacob Reiff served as tax assessor for Lower Salford Township (Heckler,101, Riffe, 40).
2.
Public offices show relation in community, but Jacob Reiff and the first German Reformed church in Pennsylvania was even more about his relation with his family. Dotterer says that "he was conspicuously identified with the interests of the German Reformed church in Pennsylvania" (Heckler, 30), which would be from the very first meeting of that church unofficially, c. 1720 with the arrival of Boehm, and before since they had first met in Hans George Reiff's home, then Jacob's.
Boehm said the church met in 1727 in Jacob Reiff’s house, inherited from his father, Hans George, d. January 1727, but none of this is credited in the official accounts which read, "On September 21, 1727, the Rev. George Michael Weiss and 400 members of the German Reformed Church arrived in Philadelphia from the Palatinate region of western Germany. They settled in a neighborhood east of Broad Street and north of Market Street. Weiss, the first ordained German Reformed minister in North America, began holding services soon after his arrival. The congregation he organized in 1727 became Philadelphia's Old First Reformed Church" (Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Old First Reformed Church Records, 1741-1976).
1) Jacob, youngest of four brothers, was sole executor and major beneficiary of his father's will, bequeathed his blacksmith’s tools, which implies a trade of Jacob’s also practiced. (see Oley, 48).
2) Hans Jacob Reiff appointed "Two Indifferent men" to supervise the remaining division of his estate, "to prevent Discord" among four brothers.
3) Hans George’s witnessing of the momentous Mennonite Meetinghouse Trust, which “only members in good standing in the meeting could serve as trustees” (Wenger, 96), witnesses his good character. All of the brothers were active citizens, more or less wealthy, implicitly educated. When Hans George died George was 34, Peter 32, Conrad 30, Jacob 28, and Anna Maria, 22.
3.
At the funeral of Anna Reiff of 1753 Muhlenberg says Jacob's mother, was "a pious widow, a domestic preacher, an intercessor, and a model of godliness." The Skippack Reformed Church meeting in Jacob Reiff's house had both Jacob's mother in attendance and his brothers Peter and Conrad, sister Anna Maria and with his brother George as an elder. The acting pastor, John Philip Boehm, served in various capacities as teacher, and as a consequence of the emotional pleading of Dewees and Antes, after 1725 became pastor. This community was stable in its relations and there is no evidence of discord before the arrival in 1727 of the first ordained Reformed clergy of Pennsylvania, George Michael Weiss, who proved to be a deal breaker.
4. Weiss Overthrows Boehm
A colony of Reformed led by the pastor George Michael Weiss arrived in September 1727. There is no suggestion that he knew of the Hillegas' brothers in Philadelphia before they went abroad to raise this colony. The same reason urged upon Boehm for his own reason to become a pastor, that there was no other in that sacerdotal wilderness, must have urged Jacob Reiff to acquaint himself with Weiss when he had arrived. Would he not want also, in brotherhood, to acquaint him with the congregation? Not unnatural. So it was that Jacob Reiff, Boehm says, "first introduced him into our congregation" (208). And why not, the congregation met in Jacob Reiff's house.
When Weiss arrived in Philadelphia on September 21, 1727, he signed his name first as the head of a company that included the Hillegases. Hinke notes that "judging from Boehm's report of 1744, the real leader of the colony was Frederick Hillegas, who with his two brothers had been a resident of Pennsylvania and who had evidently gone back to Germany to organize this colony" (30). This wheel within the wheel certainly needs turning, but Weiss's first act upon landing wreaked havoc among all the Reformed churches of Philadelphia because he declared that John Philip Boehm, their putative, if quasi official pastor, who had led the Reiff Church for two or more years, was unfit.
If it is assumed that Boehm's "pastorate" prior to Weiss's arrival was happy, this changed it dramatically and quickly to the bad. Boehm later says of Frederick Hillegas and his two brothers, Peter and Michael, "they sought to force in a violent manner and in a shameful way into all my congregations here. Thus with this Weiss they were a hindrance to me and antagonized me, inasmuch as Weiss immediately began in a rude manner to belittle me with shameful letters which I have now in my possession. He ran around everywhere, tried to push me violently out of my office and preached in all my congregations, without first consulting me about it. His attacks became so rude that although very few adhered to him, and these only at the instigation of Hillegas and Doctor Diemer, I began to fear that our work…might thereby indeed be ruined." Hinke, 410, Letter of 1744).
Boehm came to recognize Diemer and the Hillegass brothers, Weiss’s enforcers, as "my bitterest enemies"(Hinke, 322, Letter of 1741).
So yes, on arriving in Philadelphia, September 21, 1727 Weiss immediately preached (October 19) at Jacob Reiff's house, making him forever complicit in the events that followed, whether he desired them or not. Face the facts, Reiff had gone out of his way in helping organize the church and providing a place to meet. He was obviously not averse to Boehm, who had been de facto pastor for those years and a teacher from his arrival in 1720. As indicated above Reiff was trusted as a man who came of a good and established family. It is therefore doubtful that his first intention in introducing Weiss was to cause trouble. It's pretty sure too that he would not have liked the Hillegases meddling.
What happened? Weiss declared Boehm to be an illegal and staged a coup d'etat six months later on March 10, 1728. Whatever Jacob Reiff knew of this in advance, we might leave room for the idea that not being a theologian he could be swayed by Weiss' ecclesiastical arguments. The nature of Reformed church doctrine could have weighed therein for it is heavily based upon rule and formality. From a doctrinal point of view Weiss' challenge to Boehm's legitimacy was then technically correct. The particulars of the coup d'etat and the erosion of Boehm's authority are itemized in Boehm's letter of 1730. Weiss subverted not just Skippack, but Faulkner Swamp, Goschenhoppen and Whitemarsh to one degree or another. Although the Hillegases were from Philadelphia they were prominent in this, urging in Skippack on February 11, 1728 that the people "give me up and subscribe an annual salary for Mr. Weiss" (Hinke, 216). At the final separation "these men from Philadelphia, whom he [Weiss] had around him, absolutely denied my right to preach with all sorts of outrageous words against me" (317).
Hinke, editor of Boehm's letters and his biographer, says that "in 1730 Peter Wentz was a member of the Skippack Reformed church, an adherent of the Rev. George Michael Weiss" (26) not of Boehm, and that his son, Peter Wentz Jr. was a trustee of the Wentz Reformed Church in Worcester, founded later as a successor to the Skippack church where Jacob Reiff Jr. was also a trustee.
Congregational Basis
Wherever the first German Reformed church in Pennsylvania was built, “they did not bring pastors with them” says the German Reformed Church website, now the UCC, right there an impossibility as they held to such vigorous rules of order. Thus they had first "urged upon Boehm the necessity of assuming the office of minister among them, as there was apparently no prospect of securing the services of a regularly ordained pastor" (Hinke, 28). It is important to realize that the ordination of Boehm was congregationally inspired, clearly the opposite of a Reformed polity. Initially they had met together of their own accord. After being persuaded to serve, although not officially ordained, Boehm wrote out a constitution and they divided into "three congregations, Falkner Swamp, Skippack and Whitemarsh (Hinke, 29).
Boehm's title to the Skippack church, that "my elders started it" (Hinke, 217) is good only insofar as the mutual commitment of the congregation was maintained.
As the lovable Mittelberger says, “most preachers are engaged for the year…and when any one fails to please his congregation, he is given notice and must put up with it” (Journey, 47). That is to say that at the root of the Reformed church conflict of those years was a conflict between the old and the new, between the hierarchical old and the democratic congregational manner of the new.
As to the ownership of the much disputed new church building, there was none. Boehm was "forcibly expelled" from "our usual meeting place," [March 11, 1728] "a private house, namely that of Jacob Reiff, because we had no church there" (Hinke, 217, Letter of 1730). Obviously that building was not yet there. Further, in his letter of 1744 Boehm still hopes Reiff, "will have to give up the church which stands upon his property, wherein I have not yet been allowed to preach" (Hinke, 411). It seems obvious though that the building was built after Boehm was removed. It was dedicated June 22, 1729, and Boehm says "Jacob Reiff and his brothers contend that the land belongs to them and they have advanced most of the money, and as the highest creditors appropriated it." (217). It must have been under construction the previous year.
But in all the foregoing brouhaha of claim and counter claim it is paramount to note that, whatever the contentions about the particulars of the overthrow, Jacob Reiff wasn't there for it. He had left Philadelphia in 1727. He gives only the year of departure in his deposition, but since Boehm says Reiff "first introduced him [Weiss] into our congregation" (208) this argues Reiff’s departure for Holland and Germany as being at least in the fall of 1727 but probably not as late as December, since the 546 acres on December 1 of that year were only actually recorded on that date [thank you, Harry]. It seems very possible that he left to "fetch my relations" immediately after introducing Boehm to Skippack, whereupon the Philadelphia Church largely took over the governance of the Reformed ventures.
If this strikes anyone as a side of the story they have not yet heard, stay tuned, for there is a very great deal more to it.
5.
His two trips back to the old country set Jacob Reiff apart from his fellows, but therein he goes from praise to blame. So Reformed church historians Harbaugh and Hinke and Glatfelter oppose the favorable views of Hecker and Dotterer about Reiff.
Primary sources for Jacob Reiff include wills, tax records, deeds, ship lists, the diary of Gerhard Clemens, the letters of Boehm, the Journals of Muhlenberg, the diaries of Michael Schlatter, his appointment as Deputy Register of Wills for Philadelphia County and election as a Philadelphia County Assessor, but most importantly, his voluminous answer to a suit filed against him in 1732. Much information is offered in this legal defense that otherwise would not be known. But if you are just starting out in life as an individual and you want to leave a good name for posterity, don't run afoul of an institution. It will have a long memory and not cease, even hundreds of years later, justifying itself. It is after all the job of its historians to defend the parochial interest. Exculpating evidence will not be forthcoming from them, but the damage can be all the more destructive when disguised in scholarship, or in an apparently even handed approach, perhaps with a detail overlooked and a generality allowed, but always with an objective patina.
Consider in this regard Gladfelter's lauded standard work, Pastors and People and answer yourself these questions in a historical catechism:
Why did Weiss really have to take Jacob Reiff to Holland? Answer: Because the people did not trust Weiss.
Why does G. say the donations were "for building a church in Philadelphia" (44) when all the correspondence says they were for Skippack and Philadelphia?
Why does G insist that "Reiff, insisting that in what he did he was merely carrying out orders, refused to assume responsibility for what had happened," when two sentences earlier he had said "they collected a considerable sum which, upon instructions from the Philadelphia consistory, Reiff invested in merchandise." This is essentially what Hinke had said, "Diemer had been one of the conspirators, who, through his scheme of investing the funds in merchandise, had caused the whole trouble" (56). G's language already assumed the agency-principal relation, so, if Reiff did this upon "instructions from the Philadelphia consistory" he can hardly be expected to "assume responsibility" for their mistake!
Had Reiff insisted otherwise and not invested the money in merchandise, certainly his antagonists, with G., would charge him with disobeying their orders. As to the second half of the sentence "or even to make a report which satisfied the congregation" it is obvious that these men were his enemies and would not take any report at all. What they wanted was money, to embarrass and discredit him and failing that, someone to blame. Interestingly, Boehm says they were not true elders and that they were defrocked. Also B. reports an occasion when Reiff. did give them a report but it wasn't one they liked, what we may call “The Kierkendieff Report.”G says "an attempt to prosecute him ended in failure" but we aren't told what caused the failure. Was it lack of evidence? Was it his innocence? He allows us to think generally that the "failure" was an unfortunate delay in justice when it was in fact exculpatory, for the prosecution was flawed and non evidential.
I Fetch My Relations
When Jacob Reiff and the Rev. George Weiss sailed to Holland in 1730, Reiff for the second time, many conflicting issues of character were put into play. The specific details of these events are contained in Reiff's answer to the complaint of Diemer, Hillegas, et. al. (See, "Papers in the Reiff Case, 1730-1749," edited by J. H. Dubbs).
Diemer, or Dr. John Jacob Diemer, and Hillegas led the contingent of Philadelphia Reformed elders (so-called). Jacob Diemer, Michael Hillegass, Peter Hillegass, Jost Schmidt, Hendrick Weller, Jacob Sigel and Wilhelm Rohrich signed the complaint against Reiff. These two had a natural old world affinity with each other since both came to Philadelphia with their families in the same ship's party, led, by of all persons, the Rev. George Weiss. This is to say that they had fetched their relations in one fell swoop.
Although it was Weiss's idea to raise money for the churches, at the outset he was unsure in his own mind whether he would return to Pennsylvania, he had practically just arrived, especially in the event that no money existed in Holland and Germany for him to collect, thus Jacob Reiff was drafted to deliver the putative monies in case Weiss remained. Weiss’s instability accounts the motive of Reiff’s second trip.
Indeed, Reiff had only barely returned to Philadelphia in August of 1729 from his first trip before being drafted for the second, during which time Weiss had pastored continuously in place of Boehm. Then Reiff was immediately put on turn around to return to Europe with Weiss. The reasons he was so chosen include his experience with the voyage, his youth and unmarried state as well as his sagacity and trustworthiness. Obviously he was also Weiss's choice. The odd thing is that otwithstanding his total absence during the event of Boehm's deposing, Reiff and not Weiss has been continually blamed and indicted as the chief conspirator by the Reformed Church historians ever since and pretty much the sole instigator against Boehm.
The Reformed historians who argue this take their cue from the much afflicted Boehm, who had harsh words for literally everyone. If Reiff is especially singled out, nowhere do his critics explain how he could be so lethal to Boehm’s interests when he was not even in the country, having left for Holland on his first voyage in 1727, returning August 17, 1729, remaining nine months, then sailing again for Holland, May 19, 1730 with Weiss, returning again in the fall of 1732. In five years time he was in the country nine months.
That first trip significantly backgrounds the second. On the first trip in 1727 Reiff had been asked to deliver a petition for funds from the Pennsylvanian Weiss and the Reformed congregations of Skippack and Philadelphia to Dr. Wilhelmius, the Reformed pastor in Rotterdam and Weiss’ friend.
Because of this petition the Holland churches had taken a collection which two years later, when Jacob Reiff was about to return from his first trip Wilhelmius asked him to transport. Reiff however refused. Why wouldn't he take the money, since he had, after all, delivered the petition? Had he done so much difficulty would have been prevented, the "Papers in the Reiff Case" would never have existed and the Rev. J. H. Dubbs would never have had to celebrate the Reformed centennial with the dismal observation that ". . .the earliest documents in our possession are of such a character that we might wish the occasion for writing them had never occurred" ("Papers," 55). Indeed after they merged the second or third time they were able to make all mention of this event to plain disappear from their website.
It was not the issues themselves but the personal disputes, disagreements, and jealousies endemic to the time and the people that were the primary causes of these affairs for the next twenty years. The real antagonists to Jacob Reiff were not Boehm or Weiss, but the Hillegass brothers and Dr. Diemer, 1) parties to the initial complaint, presumed elders in the Philadelphia congregation, leaders of the company that came with Weiss and 2) plaintiffs to the second complaint in the Court of Common Pleas case against Jacob Reiff on March l7, l742, for slander when he publicly rebuked them as "church thieves."
These antagonisms become clear after the fact, but the details they exemplify in the life of families, churches, individuals and parties allow us to infer the larger German colonial situation. Such inference adds immensely to our interest and understanding. In the present case as to why he did not take the funds upon his first return, Reiff's reply to Dr. Wilhelmius was that "….this defendant absolutely refused so to do, having been informed by letter from some of his friends in Pennsylvania that some of the members of the ad. Congregations were jealous or entertained some suspicions of this defendants' honesty, or to that purpose" ("Papers", 61). He doesn't name anyone in particular, but the antagonisms are pretty clear. We are left to sift from other sources, especially the letters of Rev. John Philip Boehm, these identities and the nature and extent of their antagonism.
The background to these events involves at least the two court cases, but also claims and counter claims regarding affidavits and various letters of authorization. The first of these letters, as stated, is the petition of the churches to Dr. Wilhelmius (cite in appendix) for "charitable donations." As we have seen, Jacob Reiff first refused this trust because of perceived jealousies and suspicions. Why then does he receive the trust in the second instance? The logic from his perspective must be that he will take the money back on the second trip because he has prior agreement in a letter from the churches, a specific authorization that he did not have previously that could contravene his doubters. Of course, as we know, pieces of paper without good will can never protect anyone from suspicions and jealousies, nor did they in this instance. The very persons who signed this authority are complainants in the 1732 case. He must also have felt that the doubts upon his honesty in the first case were buttressed by Weiss' presence in the second. In addition, prior to his second sailing the elders at Philadelphia and Skippack gave Jacob Reiff a written authority, dated May 19, 1730.
The First Letter of Authorization
The first letter given to Jacob Reiff May 19, 1730 before he sailed (Dubbs, 58) states,
"Forasmuch as our pastor Weiss, in company with his traveling companion, Jacob Reiff, has resolved to take a journey to England and Rotterdam, for the purpose of receiving a collection which is said to be ready in loco, to be applied to the establishment of a church in these provinces; therefore authority is herewith given to Jacob Reiff to take entire charge, so that Mr. Weiss may be expedited on his immediate return with the same to Pennsylvania. Therefore, we also entrust everything to his [Reiff’s] good conscience, and give him plenary power in everything. In testimony whereof we sign our names. Given at Philadelphia, May l9, l730.We hereby request Jacob Reiff to arrange matters in such a way that if Pastor Weiss should or would not return to this country, he, Reiff, may at once bring with him a minister from Heidelberg, and provide him with whatever is most necessary; because if the monies collected should at any rate be no longer in loco we do not deem it necessary that Mr. Weiss should further extend his journey; but that according to his best judgment, Jacob Reiff should deliver the letters at their proper destination and personally make inquiries for a reply.
Signed by all the elders of the congregation at Philadelphia and Skippack.
J. Diemer, D.M.P., Wendel KeiberPieter Lecolie, Deobalt Jung,Johann Willm Rorig, Christoffel Schmitt,Henrich Weller Gerhart (G.I.H.) In De Heven, S.N.,George Peter Hillengass Georg ReifHans Michel Frolich, George Philip Dodder, Michael Hillengass
It is important to realize that this letter directs Weiss to "return with the same," that is, with the money. But it further directs him that if the monies are not ready, which of course is not germane since the money is "in loco," to stay there! Does it seem like the money is wanted? Otherwise it is obvious that the letter authorizes Jacob Reiff "plenary power in everything," and has everything entrusted "to his good conscience." But obviously this letter of authority is not followed since while Weiss does return he does not bring the money.
The Second Letter of Authorization
The second letter of authorization, sent to Jacob Reiff while he was in Holland countermands the first in several ways, l) it transfers authority for the money and 2)As reported by Boehm to Deputy Velingius, October 28, 1734:
"Then he [Jacob Reiff] showed a letter which they [the elders] had sent to him to Holland, which, after taking the authority from Do. Weiss (which he had received from the whole congregation) and transferring it to Jacob Reiff, read as follows: Jacob Reiff shall take the collected money, buy merchandise with it and ship it to them. For his profits he is to have six per cent. And on his return to this country the money which he spent shall be refunded to him." This letter, which certainly ten of us read, was signed by seven men (who had usurped the eldership) with their own hands. They wrote further in their letter to Reiff that he should do so at their risk and whatever might come of it they would guarantee him against loss with all their possessions…" (Letters, 236).
I Think I Am a Kirkendief
Let us take a psychological view of the event. If we grant that men truly accused defend themselves, how does a man falsely accused act? The modern intuition knows that to deny is to affirm. Protesting too much and thus revealing guilt comes along with a modern history of plausible deniability and numerous Machiavellian schemes to confuse an adversary, all to the evading the issue through deception, that issue being, their own guilt.
But if an ordinary man were innocent, would he not be vexed in his statements, would he couch his language in politics? Probably not. He might be angry and sarcastic, ironic and stubborn all in the same breath. Outrage and sarcasm are an honest response when your enemies make outrageous accusations.
Reiff's enemies do make outrageous accusations. One such is the suit filed in the Pennsylvania courts by Diemer, Hillegas-et. al. to the effect that Jacob Reiff "is about to depart this province and to transport himself into parts beyond the seas" (Dubbs, 59). This is especially egregious considering that he had only just returned from traveling beyond those very seas, and in their behalf! After traveling in Europe for nearly five years they allege he is going to leave his homestead, the burial place of his father, his brothers, his widowed mother, all to abscond to Europe so as not to give an account to them of his (their) own responsibility concerning their petty cash.
This is all patently absurd and obviously a ploy of his antagonists to get his goat or as he says, "to vex and trouble" (Papers, 66). So it is obviously a ruse when they ask the Court "to restrain the said Jacob Reiff from departing this province." Of course the Court takes it prima facie and compels bail, but not only is the complaint formally flawed, it is withdrawn by the complainants themselves in 1735. Hinke reluctantly concedes, "perhaps because they were unable to prove their contentions" (43). So this rumor disappeared like smoke.
Continuing however to suspect, as the phrase goes, that where there's smoke, there is more smoke, we are led to think that his "complainants" might obfuscate again. Jacob Reiff had specifically charged Diemer and Hillegass with "church robbery," for which they had sued him. But Boehm adds the amazing intelligence that that was not all that Jacob Reiff said on that occasion:
". . .the congregation made a wonderful discovery, for as they gathered one by one and perhaps 30 men were assembled, then Reiff said plainly before us all: 'Doctor Diemer, Peter and Michael Hillegass are church-robbers, they steal the bread out of the mouths of the Reformed people in Philadelphia, of their children and children's children'" (Letter of 1734, 236). But while what Jacob Reiff says next has Boehm in an ecstasy, it depends how discerning the reader is as to whose ox gets gored.
In all these charges, countercharges, claims, complaints, boasts, fratricides and follies which of these characters ever admits to anything? Right. Nobody.
It's like Boehm says in his letter of 1741, no one would take responsibility for the problem: "Diemer and six others with him are just as much to blame for the loss and deception as Reiff" (3l5). Hinke comments that "the secret of the whole trouble was that when the investment of the money in merchandise proved a total failure, none of the participants was willing to shoulder the loss, hence Reiff was unwilling to make a settlement" (Life and Letters, 44).
It is therefore all the more astonishing then that when Jacob Reiff says before them all that Diemer and the Hillegasses are robbers, he adds, "I admit that I am a church-thief, but they are church-thieves as well as I. If they had not written to me, I would not have done it" (236).This doesn’t sound like a thief, it sounds like an honest man vexed. The fact that he gets sued lends even more credence to his honesty. Boehm gives the gist of this letter that Diemer and six others had sent to Reiff in Holland.
This letter, cited above, we cite again for the added intelligence its repetition gives:
" 'Jacob Reiff shall take the collected money, buy merchandise with it and ship it to them. For his profits he is to have six per cent. And on his return to this country the money which he spent shall be refunded to him.' This letter, which certainly ten of us read, was signed by seven men (who had usurped the eldership) with their own hands. They wrote further in their letter to Reiff, that he should do so at their risk and whatever might come of it they would guarantee him against loss with all their possessions, of which, beside them, not a member of the whole congregation knew anything" (Letters, 1734, 236).
But usurpers or not, the seven who signed the letter were the leaders of the congregation, and they were the original seven from Philadelphia who had signed the first letter authorizing the initial collections.
Also obviously, if the congregation knew nothing of their usurpation, how could Jacob Reiff? But this second letter and the revelations surrounding the events of its being made public caused those seven signers to be "deposed" from their church offices: "Whereupon the congregation met again and came to the inevitable resolution to depose these men for these and other, sufficiently grave causes " (Letters, 1734, 236).
So while Weiss was invited to own responsibility and Diemer, et al, were proven to own it, only Reiff did.
The Petition of Diemer, Hillegass, et. al.
"THE PETITION OF Jacob Diemer, Michael Hillegas, Peter Hillegas, Joost Schmidt, Hendrick Weller Jacob Siegel, Wilhelm Rohrich. In Behalf of themselves and divers others members of the German Reformed Church in Philada." contended that Jacob Reiff would not give THEM an account of the monies collected. While this directly concerns their suit it is also raises a broader issue.
They say that "Jacob Reiff tho' often requested by those Complts refuses to render any account of the sd. Money, or from whom, or to what use he received the same, or to pay or give security for the payment thereof to the Church Wardens or Ancients of the Reformed Church at Philada." (Dubbs, 59)
Diemer's Letter to the Dutch Synods, The Dutch Synod's to James Logan
This was filed November 23, 1732. But the fundamental ill will of Dr. Diemer against Reiff that obviously preceded this petition lasted an even longer time. Long after failing all legal recourse in Philadelphia courts Diemer was still plaguing the Dutch Synods in 1736 with his charges and countercharges, causing the Synods more or less ignorantly to address James Logan, the President of the Philadelphia Council, April 20, 1739, pleading that he "prosecute Reiff. . .church robbery" (Dubbs, 68). Of course the Hollanders knew nothing firsthand about the case and Diemer, easily introduced a serpent into their bosom.
One of the things they did not know included the above-mentioned defrocking of Diemer, Hillegas, etc. by the congregation from their elderships in April, 1734, the cause being their aforesaid direction to Reiff that the investments in merchandise be carried out. Fortunately for him, Jacob Reiff was able to produce their letter to this effect. Who can doubt that otherwise they'd have denied the whole thing. This demonstrates that Diemer's letter of 1736 is more in the nature of vendetta, a pretense of seeking a solution to the problem. He no longer had any official capacity (cf, Hinke, 44) if in fact he ever had any at all. Boehm declares the "John Jacob Diemer, the physician, never was an elder" (Letters, 236).
But furthermore, the Holland Synods do not seem to know that as early as October 1, 1736 the Amsterdam Classis had written to Weiss to the effect that (in Boehm's paraphrase) "Weiss should think the matter over and straighten out the affair of the collection-money, for Reiff could not be forced, since he, Weiss, was the recipient of the money and, therefore, had to answer for it" (Letter of 1741, 328). The right hand of the Classis hides its actions from the left hand of the Synods.
II. JACOB'S SLANDER
"An den fingern hangen geblieben" ( A Committee of the Classis of Amsterdam, in Harbaugh, Fathers, 268),"yea, the most of the monies collected remained in the hands of Mr. Reif.")
The Part Is Not the Whole.
l. A chronological approach to the problem of Jacob's slander does not fully explain its continuation. Chronologically, we cite the letters of Boehm (1728-1748), the answer of Jacob Reiff (1733) and the letters of M. Schlatter, but why were these read selectively by later historians Harbaugh and Hinke? Was it to protect the reputation of the Church itself and its pastors?
It makes sense to begin with Schlatter and see what kind of reputations he established for the various characters. (add here Schlatters call).
Schlatter himself is involved in this since he was empowered by the Synods to resolve the case in 1746. On the 8th (of September) he went "to see Mr. J. Reif, to require of him, agreeably to the instructions of the Synod, an account of the moneys collected in Holland by him and Rev. G. M. Weiss, sixteen years previously, for the benefit of the churches of Pennsylvania ("Schlatter's Appeal" in The Life of Rev. Michael Schlatter by Rev. H. Harbaugh, Philadelphia: Lindsay and Blakiston, 1857, 127). As Schlatter says, "this disagreeable business was not disposed of till the beginning of the following year, 1747" (133).
The problem with the settlement seems to be:
l) that the terms of the settlement are insufficient,
2) the delay of l6 years is too long
3) no responsibility is fixed for the lapses.
By the time Harbaugh came to judge the matter, also in an 1857 publication (in his The Fathers of The German Reformed Church in America, Lancaster: Sprenger and West haeffer, Vol. I), the" disagreeable business" had become a "crooked business." Harbaugh declares Weiss innocent: "it is evident that Mr. Weiss was not implicated in this crooked business."(268) But this is not so evident when we look at the facts. These sometimes include disagreements between allies such as the Amsterdam Classis (October l, l736, Hinke,328) and Boehm (236) about who is responsible. Undeniably, the efficient cause of all that happened is the Rev. George Michael Weiss (add Dubbs here).
l) It was Weiss who initially deposed Boehm.2) It was Weiss who first conceived of raising money in Holland and that perhaps not so much for the churches but for his own salary, "he intends to put this out at interest, so that he can live on it." (Letters, 208).3) "there are few who believe that he will ever be seen in this wild country, if his plans …miscarry." (198)4) It was Weiss to whom the money was given and it was Weiss who turned it over to Jacob Reiff.
As already cited, the Amsterdam Classis recognized Weiss' responsibility in this when it first attempted a settlement of the problem by advising Weiss ( a full four years after the event) that he "should think the matter over and straighten out the affair of the collection-money, for Reiff could not be forced, since he, Weis, was the recipient of the money and, therefore had to answer for it." (According to Boehm's letter to the Classis of Amsterdam, July 25, 1741, in Hinke, 328. Cf. The Eccl. Records of N. Y., Vol. IV, p. 2676 for their original letter of October 1, 1736).
5) It was Weiss, not Reiff, who in fact "departed the province" and would not return to give any account of himself or the money.
There is much evidence of Weiss' changeable if not pusillanimous nature. He reneges his agreement with Boehm to reconcile (and Hinke blames his congregation for this). When he goes to collect the money that he asked for he is not sure he will return (which is why Jacob Reiff goes; they are sure he will return). Weiss departs Philadelphia immediately and won't return to give his own account. Of course, previously, having been in the country only a week he condemned Boehm. He is both rash and weak!
2. The recourse of the historians and officials of the German Reformed Church in almost every instance of their pastors' failings has been to blame the congregations. History has thus become a public relations campaign. Harbaugh takes as a given that the evidence alleged by the adversarial complainants against Jacob Reiff in l732 is true, but does not actually say so! These "witnesses" there are his truth to the "crooked business." A re-examination of the witnesses is in order. But if the Reverend Schlatter and the Reverend Harbaugh suggest impropriety, the Reverend William J. Hinke in his Life and Letters of the Rev. John Philip Boehm (Philadelphia:Sunday School Board of the Reformed Church in the United States, 1916), following the passions of Boehm, alleges, among others, forgery. This is especially troubling in the context of Hinke's admission that "the evidence is somewhat contradictory coming to us from Weiss, Reiff and Boehm. Selecting the statements of Boehm as giving us most likely the true version of what happened. . . "(42) Hinke goes on to doubt every evidence of exculpation, even when it is from Boehm's pen.
3. This becomes all the more important seeing that the past records of these events and the judgments they give are now defunct. There is no longer a German Reformed Church, it having merged in l934 to form the Evangelical and Reformed Church and subsequent to that was absorbed into the United Church of Christ. This church history has now been sanitized to such an extent that Jacob Reiff is not mentioned in the gathering of church funds in Europe and so the judgments of the church scholars go unchallenged.
Aside from mistaking the part for the whole and piling on, the German Reformed historians are both an essential part of the conflict and of its solution. But Hinke has also done a service in his translation of Boehm's letters and so has the Reformed Church for publishing them. The problem is that the published record has not been studied enough, for while Boehm is Jacob Reiff's chief accuser, he is also his chief vindicator. Without the material in the Boehm letters much less would be known about Jacob Reiff, his character, his fortunes and misfortunes against the religious background of the time.
III. Church Government: By The People, For the People?
A large part of the background of these problems relates to a need to have the old world authority to baptize, or serve communion, or in fact to make any decisions relating to local government of churches and decisions by the people themselves. The Reformed suspicion was against the Congregationalist attitudes that surrounded them. Politically of course, these became democratic attitudes.
How dare the burghers make their own decisions? "If the people rule every vagabond may cause factions," says Boehm (H. 332).
The authorities, wherever they were, feared variously a return to when everyone did what was right in his own eyes. Boehm says again that "every one imagined that his own free will was the best "(H. 239). The Classis of Amsterdam told its New York ministers this as well: "We consider ourselves under great obligations to you for your charity and labor, as well as for your great care against congregationalism. This, you rightly judge, produces very injurious results" (H. 226, 1730).
Nonetheless the appeal of a church order was not so great as the appeal that Boehm complained Peter Miller was making, that he ". . .called the Heidelberg Catechism a work of men, adding that Christians were a free people, and had no need on earth of a head, that Christ in heaven was their only head, and that he would not allow himself to be subjected to a human yoke, etc." (Letter of l734 in Letters, 255-56). John Peter Miller was pastor of the Skippack Reformed after Boehm was rejected, also of Philadelphia and Germantown, but only for about a year from the fall of l730 to l73l when he became pastor of Goshenhoppen till 1734.
It is doubly ironic that the Reiff Church began as it did as a congregational matter, with "the people" inaugurating Boehm "with tears," only to later have its congregational wishes denied by the authorities. That is, they first organized and invested Boehm congregationally. Boehm was then divested denominationally, by Weiss, then reinvested denominationally by the Reformed authorities, only in turn to be divested congregationally!
What the Classis was first moved to ratify, it thereafter denied, but it is obvious that the Skippack folk were too congregational at the heart. As Muhlenberg told Pastor Voigt, "it is not in accord with the gospel of Christ that a man should force himself upon a congregation against the wish of the majority of members." (Journals, III, 8) In a similar vein Muhlenberg insisted that ". . .in religious and church matters, each has the right to do what he pleases. . .everything depends on the vote of the majority." (Journals, l742, I, 67) Of course it is recalled that the issues of church government were the least desirable face of the Calvinists.
The idea of self-government, government by the people was feared by other authorities in Pennsylvania, but not by Penn.
IV. The Will of the People: CONGREGATIONAL VS. DENOMINATIONAL
Follow the Money
The question is whether we should interpret the man by the numbers or the numbers by the man. Which will afford a better chance, knowing that a man may dissemble or that numbers may lie? How many robbers up and confess?
Rather they lie, blame others to save their skin. And what is it that makes all jealousies, lies, betrayals worthwhile? Why it is money! Not the grail, justice, democracy, but money. And what do we judge when the numbers contradict the man, take a DNA sample we cannot do. Yes there are lies and liars that history mistakes as truths and truth tellers. There is already skein upon skein of interpretations in the tale. Consider that Weiss is excused from giving any account at all of the money that was put into his hands merely on the basis of an oath he took before leaving town! But Jacob Reiff is accused on the same basis and unbelieved in the oath he took before a full court but he stayed in town.
Dubbs says that Jacob Reiff ". . .was, to say the least, very careless in keeping his accounts." But (57) Weiss says he didn't do it. The Synod in l739 refers to ". . .the bad way of doing of these two persons." ("Papers," 68) Of course the Synod was so blind they gave an authority to Diemer for inquiry. Boehm was enraged at their promiscuous spending but he was mad at Jacob Reiff for his keeping title to the log church. Why would church scholar William Hinke. . .select "the statements of Boehm as giving us most likely the true version of what happened" (42) as if that were anything other than mistaking the part for the whole? It makes one think there are issues under the table not being declared. Notwithstanding his absence of four to five years Jacob Reiff is blamed by Boehm for Boehm's failed relations with the Skippack community.
Reverends vs. Reiff
The adversarial nature of these affairs has been worsened by time, formalized by centuries. But at least some thought should be given to the idea that if the shepherds are divided why should the sheep be blamed, which leads to a closer look at those shepherds. There were some peculiarities afoot. They were doctrinally exact and cold as ice. The problem manifests itself in church splits, wars between pastors, claims and counterclaims, but also in the statement, another "curious coincidence" of Sachse's, "that nearly all the leading spirits of the mystic movement at Ephrata were recruited from the Reformed church (I, 211)." Likewise he says that in the Tulpehocken country the "Mosaic ceremonies and customs were derived and practiced by the German settlers, whose reason was almost dethroned with religious excitement and vagaries." (I, 116). And that "a majority of names. . .members of the congregation. . .were originally of the Reformed faith. (118)."
Sources are always being digitalized that make updates possible, for instance in 2006, Corwin's, A Manual of the Reformed Church in America (1902). LIFE AND LETTERS OF THE REV. JOHN PHILIP BOEHM FOUNDER OF THE REFORMED CHURCH IN PENNSYLVANIA, EDITED BY THE REV. WILLIAM J. HINKE, PUBLICATION AND SUNDAY SCHOOL BOARD OF THE REFORMED CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES 1916, online as of Oct 2007. Henry Harbaugh's, The Fathers of the German Reformed Church in Europe and America (1857) as of April 2007.
We reopen this inquest into the founding of the first Reformed Church of Philadelphia, "the Old First Reformed Church of Philadelphia," founded then as the German Reformed Church (1727), but whose unofficial forerunner began in 1725 in Skippack. Collusion and slander by later church authorities for the purpose of defending the institution and its officials, Schlatter, Boehm, the Dutch Classis, the later German Reformed Church that merged into the United Church, Harbaugh, Glatfelter and majority opinion sanctioned by institutions and their historians, white washed themselves. Jacob Reiff and the first Reformed Church is a tsunami of hand me down opinions, justifications and scapegoats. What was concluded by those face-saving 19th and early 20th century historians was repeated without question. "The major factor in this church's decline was a dispute that started as an accusation that Jacob Reiff had misused congregational funds while on a trip to Germany for the purpose of raising support for their church. The congregation diminished until dissolving about the 1740's, according to the history of the Reformed Church in America. " Churches and Cemeteries of Skippack, 2005. If you like drama and see in these conflicts the battling shepherds of Virgil and Spenser we give you wilkum.
Windows on 1720-1730 pre-revolutionary Philadelphia are worth seeing through. The issues involved religion, politics, science and art. The longer you look the more you see, and among the undeniable themes liberty is foremost. So something that appears small enlarges with secondary and tertiary waves that permeate the local histories of churches and graveyards.
Brief Vita
Although his father's name, Hans George Reiff, appears on a deed in 1717, the first mention of Jacob Reiff is in the diary of Gerhart Clemens, July 2, 1723, which suggests him to be "a man of enterprise and public spirit" (Dotterer in Heckler Lower Salford, 33) "entrusted by the Colonial government as agent to go around among the settlers to collect partial payments on their lands in 1723, he must have been here some time before, well acquainted, and in the confidence of the leading men" (31).
He would have signed the early petitions of 1728 and 1731, as did his brothers, George, Peter and Conrad, except he was engaged then in two successive trips to Europe. He was out of the Pennsylvania more than three years when the 77 inhabitants along Skippack Creek, asked the Governor for relief in a petition of 1728 from "the Ingians they have fell upon ye Back Inhabitors…whos Lives Lies at Stake with us and our Poor Wives and Children." This petititon might have been better Englished had Jacob been there since he was fluent in at least three languages, German, English, Dutch. Another petition to the Assembly in 1731, signed by the Reiff brothers asked that "they be permitted to enjoy the rights and privileges of English subjects."
The Reiff Church still functioned in 1736 when he and Gerhard In den Hoffen, a previous fellow member of that entity, who had rented his mill to Felix Good, sought a road from Harleysville to Good's mill, which they claimed would benefit people going to the Skippack Reformed church. This petition to the Quarter Sessions Court of Philadelphia on September 6, 1736 was denied when it was determined that "the owners and distances in some cases had not been correctly given" (Heckler, History of Skippack, 7) and that the road would only distantly approach the church. This however may only reflect the same "inaccuracy of early eighteenth century surveying" that bothered Detweiler (v) in his reconstruction of the map of Bebber's Township.
Jacob Reiff served as deputy for the probate of wills from 1743-1748 for the large area of Philadelphia County then including "the interior townships, such as Salford, Hanover, Amity, Oley, Perkiomen and Skippack, Towamencin, Maidencreek, Saucon, Rockhill, Colebrookdale, Worcester, Providence and Franconia" (Dotterer, 31). James Heckler observes that "the object in having a German-speaking deputy located here, was doubtless, to accommodate those German inhabitants, who lived a great distance from Philadelphia and were ignorant of the English language" (Heckler, 31). He spoke and wrote English, German and probably Dutch, since he traveled those five years in Holland. An example of how he may have been groomed by his father for these responsibilities is suggested in his probation of the will of Claus Jansen, first Mennonite minister at Skippack and friend of Hans George. Claus Janson's will, "dated June 1, 1739…was proven before Jacob Reiff, of Lower Salford, deputy register, October 30, 1745" (Heckler, 15). Jansen was a settler in Skippack as early as 1703, a "tax collector in 1718 before the township was organized" (Pennypacker, 30) and one of the seven trustees of the 100 acres Van Bebber gave the Skippack Mennonites in 1725. This was the same trust which Jacob's father, Hans George Reiff witnessed with his signature.
Other fragments of his official duties of those years indicate he probated the will of Christian Allebach "September 10, 1746, before Jacob Reiff, of Salford, Deputy Register" (59).
He witnessed the deed of sale of 100 acres that the widow of John Freed, Christiana, sold to Adam Gotwals on May 10, 1748 (Heckler, History of Skippack, 40) and probably acted officially before and after the 1743-48 period. He acted as trustee for the Dunkard minister Jacob Price, associate of Peter Becker, who wanted to ensure a fair distribution of his estate to his underage grandsons, Daniel and John. Price conveyed 200 acres to the oldest son, Daniel, February 7, 1741 on condition that he pay 600 pounds to his brother or give him half the land. "To secure the payment thereof, Daniel gave his bond for the said amount, and in case Jacob, their grandfather, should die before John was of lawful age the money was to be given to Jacob Reiff in trust for the said John Price. Six hundred pounds was paid to the brother, John, April 3, 1753, who latter signed a release, acknowledging the receipt of the said sum and renouncing all claim to the land" (Heckler, 7).
Jacob Reiff is one of 24 names on the Salford Road Petition to the Quarter Sessions Court of Philadelphia of June 2, 1755 where some landowners on the Maxatawny Road had refused to remove fences and were disputing the width of the road, "which not only occasioned great dispute and quarrels but likewise bloody blows" (The Perkiomen Region, V, 20).
Another example of Jacob Reiff's responsibility in the community occurs in his two year term (with Henry Cassel) beginning in 1770 as armenpfleger, overseer of the poor, which Lower Salford instituted by election beginning in 1762, an appointment administered by Philadelphia County after 1768 (Heckler, 110-111). Sharing both financial help and board, Anna Maria Zerg, for instance, was "kept by the township and 'boarded round' for many years" (Heckler 113). It would be hard to find an established family that did not share their home with her in 1760. She was still being boarded in 1776. Also later in his life (c. 1774-1778) Jacob Reiff served as tax assessor for Lower Salford Township (Heckler,101, Riffe, 40).
2.
Public offices show relation in community, but Jacob Reiff and the first German Reformed church in Pennsylvania was even more about his relation with his family. Dotterer says that "he was conspicuously identified with the interests of the German Reformed church in Pennsylvania" (Heckler, 30), which would be from the very first meeting of that church unofficially, c. 1720 with the arrival of Boehm, and before since they had first met in Hans George Reiff's home, then Jacob's.
Boehm said the church met in 1727 in Jacob Reiff’s house, inherited from his father, Hans George, d. January 1727, but none of this is credited in the official accounts which read, "On September 21, 1727, the Rev. George Michael Weiss and 400 members of the German Reformed Church arrived in Philadelphia from the Palatinate region of western Germany. They settled in a neighborhood east of Broad Street and north of Market Street. Weiss, the first ordained German Reformed minister in North America, began holding services soon after his arrival. The congregation he organized in 1727 became Philadelphia's Old First Reformed Church" (Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Old First Reformed Church Records, 1741-1976).
1) Jacob, youngest of four brothers, was sole executor and major beneficiary of his father's will, bequeathed his blacksmith’s tools, which implies a trade of Jacob’s also practiced. (see Oley, 48).
2) Hans Jacob Reiff appointed "Two Indifferent men" to supervise the remaining division of his estate, "to prevent Discord" among four brothers.
3) Hans George’s witnessing of the momentous Mennonite Meetinghouse Trust, which “only members in good standing in the meeting could serve as trustees” (Wenger, 96), witnesses his good character. All of the brothers were active citizens, more or less wealthy, implicitly educated. When Hans George died George was 34, Peter 32, Conrad 30, Jacob 28, and Anna Maria, 22.
3.
At the funeral of Anna Reiff of 1753 Muhlenberg says Jacob's mother, was "a pious widow, a domestic preacher, an intercessor, and a model of godliness." The Skippack Reformed Church meeting in Jacob Reiff's house had both Jacob's mother in attendance and his brothers Peter and Conrad, sister Anna Maria and with his brother George as an elder. The acting pastor, John Philip Boehm, served in various capacities as teacher, and as a consequence of the emotional pleading of Dewees and Antes, after 1725 became pastor. This community was stable in its relations and there is no evidence of discord before the arrival in 1727 of the first ordained Reformed clergy of Pennsylvania, George Michael Weiss, who proved to be a deal breaker.
4. Weiss Overthrows Boehm
A colony of Reformed led by the pastor George Michael Weiss arrived in September 1727. There is no suggestion that he knew of the Hillegas' brothers in Philadelphia before they went abroad to raise this colony. The same reason urged upon Boehm for his own reason to become a pastor, that there was no other in that sacerdotal wilderness, must have urged Jacob Reiff to acquaint himself with Weiss when he had arrived. Would he not want also, in brotherhood, to acquaint him with the congregation? Not unnatural. So it was that Jacob Reiff, Boehm says, "first introduced him into our congregation" (208). And why not, the congregation met in Jacob Reiff's house.
When Weiss arrived in Philadelphia on September 21, 1727, he signed his name first as the head of a company that included the Hillegases. Hinke notes that "judging from Boehm's report of 1744, the real leader of the colony was Frederick Hillegas, who with his two brothers had been a resident of Pennsylvania and who had evidently gone back to Germany to organize this colony" (30). This wheel within the wheel certainly needs turning, but Weiss's first act upon landing wreaked havoc among all the Reformed churches of Philadelphia because he declared that John Philip Boehm, their putative, if quasi official pastor, who had led the Reiff Church for two or more years, was unfit.
If it is assumed that Boehm's "pastorate" prior to Weiss's arrival was happy, this changed it dramatically and quickly to the bad. Boehm later says of Frederick Hillegas and his two brothers, Peter and Michael, "they sought to force in a violent manner and in a shameful way into all my congregations here. Thus with this Weiss they were a hindrance to me and antagonized me, inasmuch as Weiss immediately began in a rude manner to belittle me with shameful letters which I have now in my possession. He ran around everywhere, tried to push me violently out of my office and preached in all my congregations, without first consulting me about it. His attacks became so rude that although very few adhered to him, and these only at the instigation of Hillegas and Doctor Diemer, I began to fear that our work…might thereby indeed be ruined." Hinke, 410, Letter of 1744).
Boehm came to recognize Diemer and the Hillegass brothers, Weiss’s enforcers, as "my bitterest enemies"(Hinke, 322, Letter of 1741).
So yes, on arriving in Philadelphia, September 21, 1727 Weiss immediately preached (October 19) at Jacob Reiff's house, making him forever complicit in the events that followed, whether he desired them or not. Face the facts, Reiff had gone out of his way in helping organize the church and providing a place to meet. He was obviously not averse to Boehm, who had been de facto pastor for those years and a teacher from his arrival in 1720. As indicated above Reiff was trusted as a man who came of a good and established family. It is therefore doubtful that his first intention in introducing Weiss was to cause trouble. It's pretty sure too that he would not have liked the Hillegases meddling.
What happened? Weiss declared Boehm to be an illegal and staged a coup d'etat six months later on March 10, 1728. Whatever Jacob Reiff knew of this in advance, we might leave room for the idea that not being a theologian he could be swayed by Weiss' ecclesiastical arguments. The nature of Reformed church doctrine could have weighed therein for it is heavily based upon rule and formality. From a doctrinal point of view Weiss' challenge to Boehm's legitimacy was then technically correct. The particulars of the coup d'etat and the erosion of Boehm's authority are itemized in Boehm's letter of 1730. Weiss subverted not just Skippack, but Faulkner Swamp, Goschenhoppen and Whitemarsh to one degree or another. Although the Hillegases were from Philadelphia they were prominent in this, urging in Skippack on February 11, 1728 that the people "give me up and subscribe an annual salary for Mr. Weiss" (Hinke, 216). At the final separation "these men from Philadelphia, whom he [Weiss] had around him, absolutely denied my right to preach with all sorts of outrageous words against me" (317).
Hinke, editor of Boehm's letters and his biographer, says that "in 1730 Peter Wentz was a member of the Skippack Reformed church, an adherent of the Rev. George Michael Weiss" (26) not of Boehm, and that his son, Peter Wentz Jr. was a trustee of the Wentz Reformed Church in Worcester, founded later as a successor to the Skippack church where Jacob Reiff Jr. was also a trustee.
Congregational Basis
Wherever the first German Reformed church in Pennsylvania was built, “they did not bring pastors with them” says the German Reformed Church website, now the UCC, right there an impossibility as they held to such vigorous rules of order. Thus they had first "urged upon Boehm the necessity of assuming the office of minister among them, as there was apparently no prospect of securing the services of a regularly ordained pastor" (Hinke, 28). It is important to realize that the ordination of Boehm was congregationally inspired, clearly the opposite of a Reformed polity. Initially they had met together of their own accord. After being persuaded to serve, although not officially ordained, Boehm wrote out a constitution and they divided into "three congregations, Falkner Swamp, Skippack and Whitemarsh (Hinke, 29).
Boehm's title to the Skippack church, that "my elders started it" (Hinke, 217) is good only insofar as the mutual commitment of the congregation was maintained.
As the lovable Mittelberger says, “most preachers are engaged for the year…and when any one fails to please his congregation, he is given notice and must put up with it” (Journey, 47). That is to say that at the root of the Reformed church conflict of those years was a conflict between the old and the new, between the hierarchical old and the democratic congregational manner of the new.
As to the ownership of the much disputed new church building, there was none. Boehm was "forcibly expelled" from "our usual meeting place," [March 11, 1728] "a private house, namely that of Jacob Reiff, because we had no church there" (Hinke, 217, Letter of 1730). Obviously that building was not yet there. Further, in his letter of 1744 Boehm still hopes Reiff, "will have to give up the church which stands upon his property, wherein I have not yet been allowed to preach" (Hinke, 411). It seems obvious though that the building was built after Boehm was removed. It was dedicated June 22, 1729, and Boehm says "Jacob Reiff and his brothers contend that the land belongs to them and they have advanced most of the money, and as the highest creditors appropriated it." (217). It must have been under construction the previous year.
But in all the foregoing brouhaha of claim and counter claim it is paramount to note that, whatever the contentions about the particulars of the overthrow, Jacob Reiff wasn't there for it. He had left Philadelphia in 1727. He gives only the year of departure in his deposition, but since Boehm says Reiff "first introduced him [Weiss] into our congregation" (208) this argues Reiff’s departure for Holland and Germany as being at least in the fall of 1727 but probably not as late as December, since the 546 acres on December 1 of that year were only actually recorded on that date [thank you, Harry]. It seems very possible that he left to "fetch my relations" immediately after introducing Boehm to Skippack, whereupon the Philadelphia Church largely took over the governance of the Reformed ventures.
If this strikes anyone as a side of the story they have not yet heard, stay tuned, for there is a very great deal more to it.
5.
His two trips back to the old country set Jacob Reiff apart from his fellows, but therein he goes from praise to blame. So Reformed church historians Harbaugh and Hinke and Glatfelter oppose the favorable views of Hecker and Dotterer about Reiff.
Primary sources for Jacob Reiff include wills, tax records, deeds, ship lists, the diary of Gerhard Clemens, the letters of Boehm, the Journals of Muhlenberg, the diaries of Michael Schlatter, his appointment as Deputy Register of Wills for Philadelphia County and election as a Philadelphia County Assessor, but most importantly, his voluminous answer to a suit filed against him in 1732. Much information is offered in this legal defense that otherwise would not be known. But if you are just starting out in life as an individual and you want to leave a good name for posterity, don't run afoul of an institution. It will have a long memory and not cease, even hundreds of years later, justifying itself. It is after all the job of its historians to defend the parochial interest. Exculpating evidence will not be forthcoming from them, but the damage can be all the more destructive when disguised in scholarship, or in an apparently even handed approach, perhaps with a detail overlooked and a generality allowed, but always with an objective patina.
Consider in this regard Gladfelter's lauded standard work, Pastors and People and answer yourself these questions in a historical catechism:
Why did Weiss really have to take Jacob Reiff to Holland? Answer: Because the people did not trust Weiss.
Why does G. say the donations were "for building a church in Philadelphia" (44) when all the correspondence says they were for Skippack and Philadelphia?
Why does G insist that "Reiff, insisting that in what he did he was merely carrying out orders, refused to assume responsibility for what had happened," when two sentences earlier he had said "they collected a considerable sum which, upon instructions from the Philadelphia consistory, Reiff invested in merchandise." This is essentially what Hinke had said, "Diemer had been one of the conspirators, who, through his scheme of investing the funds in merchandise, had caused the whole trouble" (56). G's language already assumed the agency-principal relation, so, if Reiff did this upon "instructions from the Philadelphia consistory" he can hardly be expected to "assume responsibility" for their mistake!
Had Reiff insisted otherwise and not invested the money in merchandise, certainly his antagonists, with G., would charge him with disobeying their orders. As to the second half of the sentence "or even to make a report which satisfied the congregation" it is obvious that these men were his enemies and would not take any report at all. What they wanted was money, to embarrass and discredit him and failing that, someone to blame. Interestingly, Boehm says they were not true elders and that they were defrocked. Also B. reports an occasion when Reiff. did give them a report but it wasn't one they liked, what we may call “The Kierkendieff Report.”G says "an attempt to prosecute him ended in failure" but we aren't told what caused the failure. Was it lack of evidence? Was it his innocence? He allows us to think generally that the "failure" was an unfortunate delay in justice when it was in fact exculpatory, for the prosecution was flawed and non evidential.
I Fetch My Relations
When Jacob Reiff and the Rev. George Weiss sailed to Holland in 1730, Reiff for the second time, many conflicting issues of character were put into play. The specific details of these events are contained in Reiff's answer to the complaint of Diemer, Hillegas, et. al. (See, "Papers in the Reiff Case, 1730-1749," edited by J. H. Dubbs).
Diemer, or Dr. John Jacob Diemer, and Hillegas led the contingent of Philadelphia Reformed elders (so-called). Jacob Diemer, Michael Hillegass, Peter Hillegass, Jost Schmidt, Hendrick Weller, Jacob Sigel and Wilhelm Rohrich signed the complaint against Reiff. These two had a natural old world affinity with each other since both came to Philadelphia with their families in the same ship's party, led, by of all persons, the Rev. George Weiss. This is to say that they had fetched their relations in one fell swoop.
Although it was Weiss's idea to raise money for the churches, at the outset he was unsure in his own mind whether he would return to Pennsylvania, he had practically just arrived, especially in the event that no money existed in Holland and Germany for him to collect, thus Jacob Reiff was drafted to deliver the putative monies in case Weiss remained. Weiss’s instability accounts the motive of Reiff’s second trip.
Indeed, Reiff had only barely returned to Philadelphia in August of 1729 from his first trip before being drafted for the second, during which time Weiss had pastored continuously in place of Boehm. Then Reiff was immediately put on turn around to return to Europe with Weiss. The reasons he was so chosen include his experience with the voyage, his youth and unmarried state as well as his sagacity and trustworthiness. Obviously he was also Weiss's choice. The odd thing is that otwithstanding his total absence during the event of Boehm's deposing, Reiff and not Weiss has been continually blamed and indicted as the chief conspirator by the Reformed Church historians ever since and pretty much the sole instigator against Boehm.
The Reformed historians who argue this take their cue from the much afflicted Boehm, who had harsh words for literally everyone. If Reiff is especially singled out, nowhere do his critics explain how he could be so lethal to Boehm’s interests when he was not even in the country, having left for Holland on his first voyage in 1727, returning August 17, 1729, remaining nine months, then sailing again for Holland, May 19, 1730 with Weiss, returning again in the fall of 1732. In five years time he was in the country nine months.
That first trip significantly backgrounds the second. On the first trip in 1727 Reiff had been asked to deliver a petition for funds from the Pennsylvanian Weiss and the Reformed congregations of Skippack and Philadelphia to Dr. Wilhelmius, the Reformed pastor in Rotterdam and Weiss’ friend.
Because of this petition the Holland churches had taken a collection which two years later, when Jacob Reiff was about to return from his first trip Wilhelmius asked him to transport. Reiff however refused. Why wouldn't he take the money, since he had, after all, delivered the petition? Had he done so much difficulty would have been prevented, the "Papers in the Reiff Case" would never have existed and the Rev. J. H. Dubbs would never have had to celebrate the Reformed centennial with the dismal observation that ". . .the earliest documents in our possession are of such a character that we might wish the occasion for writing them had never occurred" ("Papers," 55). Indeed after they merged the second or third time they were able to make all mention of this event to plain disappear from their website.
It was not the issues themselves but the personal disputes, disagreements, and jealousies endemic to the time and the people that were the primary causes of these affairs for the next twenty years. The real antagonists to Jacob Reiff were not Boehm or Weiss, but the Hillegass brothers and Dr. Diemer, 1) parties to the initial complaint, presumed elders in the Philadelphia congregation, leaders of the company that came with Weiss and 2) plaintiffs to the second complaint in the Court of Common Pleas case against Jacob Reiff on March l7, l742, for slander when he publicly rebuked them as "church thieves."
These antagonisms become clear after the fact, but the details they exemplify in the life of families, churches, individuals and parties allow us to infer the larger German colonial situation. Such inference adds immensely to our interest and understanding. In the present case as to why he did not take the funds upon his first return, Reiff's reply to Dr. Wilhelmius was that "….this defendant absolutely refused so to do, having been informed by letter from some of his friends in Pennsylvania that some of the members of the ad. Congregations were jealous or entertained some suspicions of this defendants' honesty, or to that purpose" ("Papers", 61). He doesn't name anyone in particular, but the antagonisms are pretty clear. We are left to sift from other sources, especially the letters of Rev. John Philip Boehm, these identities and the nature and extent of their antagonism.
The background to these events involves at least the two court cases, but also claims and counter claims regarding affidavits and various letters of authorization. The first of these letters, as stated, is the petition of the churches to Dr. Wilhelmius (cite in appendix) for "charitable donations." As we have seen, Jacob Reiff first refused this trust because of perceived jealousies and suspicions. Why then does he receive the trust in the second instance? The logic from his perspective must be that he will take the money back on the second trip because he has prior agreement in a letter from the churches, a specific authorization that he did not have previously that could contravene his doubters. Of course, as we know, pieces of paper without good will can never protect anyone from suspicions and jealousies, nor did they in this instance. The very persons who signed this authority are complainants in the 1732 case. He must also have felt that the doubts upon his honesty in the first case were buttressed by Weiss' presence in the second. In addition, prior to his second sailing the elders at Philadelphia and Skippack gave Jacob Reiff a written authority, dated May 19, 1730.
The First Letter of Authorization
The first letter given to Jacob Reiff May 19, 1730 before he sailed (Dubbs, 58) states,
"Forasmuch as our pastor Weiss, in company with his traveling companion, Jacob Reiff, has resolved to take a journey to England and Rotterdam, for the purpose of receiving a collection which is said to be ready in loco, to be applied to the establishment of a church in these provinces; therefore authority is herewith given to Jacob Reiff to take entire charge, so that Mr. Weiss may be expedited on his immediate return with the same to Pennsylvania. Therefore, we also entrust everything to his [Reiff’s] good conscience, and give him plenary power in everything. In testimony whereof we sign our names. Given at Philadelphia, May l9, l730.We hereby request Jacob Reiff to arrange matters in such a way that if Pastor Weiss should or would not return to this country, he, Reiff, may at once bring with him a minister from Heidelberg, and provide him with whatever is most necessary; because if the monies collected should at any rate be no longer in loco we do not deem it necessary that Mr. Weiss should further extend his journey; but that according to his best judgment, Jacob Reiff should deliver the letters at their proper destination and personally make inquiries for a reply.
Signed by all the elders of the congregation at Philadelphia and Skippack.
J. Diemer, D.M.P., Wendel KeiberPieter Lecolie, Deobalt Jung,Johann Willm Rorig, Christoffel Schmitt,Henrich Weller Gerhart (G.I.H.) In De Heven, S.N.,George Peter Hillengass Georg ReifHans Michel Frolich, George Philip Dodder, Michael Hillengass
It is important to realize that this letter directs Weiss to "return with the same," that is, with the money. But it further directs him that if the monies are not ready, which of course is not germane since the money is "in loco," to stay there! Does it seem like the money is wanted? Otherwise it is obvious that the letter authorizes Jacob Reiff "plenary power in everything," and has everything entrusted "to his good conscience." But obviously this letter of authority is not followed since while Weiss does return he does not bring the money.
The Second Letter of Authorization
The second letter of authorization, sent to Jacob Reiff while he was in Holland countermands the first in several ways, l) it transfers authority for the money and 2)As reported by Boehm to Deputy Velingius, October 28, 1734:
"Then he [Jacob Reiff] showed a letter which they [the elders] had sent to him to Holland, which, after taking the authority from Do. Weiss (which he had received from the whole congregation) and transferring it to Jacob Reiff, read as follows: Jacob Reiff shall take the collected money, buy merchandise with it and ship it to them. For his profits he is to have six per cent. And on his return to this country the money which he spent shall be refunded to him." This letter, which certainly ten of us read, was signed by seven men (who had usurped the eldership) with their own hands. They wrote further in their letter to Reiff that he should do so at their risk and whatever might come of it they would guarantee him against loss with all their possessions…" (Letters, 236).
I Think I Am a Kirkendief
Let us take a psychological view of the event. If we grant that men truly accused defend themselves, how does a man falsely accused act? The modern intuition knows that to deny is to affirm. Protesting too much and thus revealing guilt comes along with a modern history of plausible deniability and numerous Machiavellian schemes to confuse an adversary, all to the evading the issue through deception, that issue being, their own guilt.
But if an ordinary man were innocent, would he not be vexed in his statements, would he couch his language in politics? Probably not. He might be angry and sarcastic, ironic and stubborn all in the same breath. Outrage and sarcasm are an honest response when your enemies make outrageous accusations.
Reiff's enemies do make outrageous accusations. One such is the suit filed in the Pennsylvania courts by Diemer, Hillegas-et. al. to the effect that Jacob Reiff "is about to depart this province and to transport himself into parts beyond the seas" (Dubbs, 59). This is especially egregious considering that he had only just returned from traveling beyond those very seas, and in their behalf! After traveling in Europe for nearly five years they allege he is going to leave his homestead, the burial place of his father, his brothers, his widowed mother, all to abscond to Europe so as not to give an account to them of his (their) own responsibility concerning their petty cash.
This is all patently absurd and obviously a ploy of his antagonists to get his goat or as he says, "to vex and trouble" (Papers, 66). So it is obviously a ruse when they ask the Court "to restrain the said Jacob Reiff from departing this province." Of course the Court takes it prima facie and compels bail, but not only is the complaint formally flawed, it is withdrawn by the complainants themselves in 1735. Hinke reluctantly concedes, "perhaps because they were unable to prove their contentions" (43). So this rumor disappeared like smoke.
Continuing however to suspect, as the phrase goes, that where there's smoke, there is more smoke, we are led to think that his "complainants" might obfuscate again. Jacob Reiff had specifically charged Diemer and Hillegass with "church robbery," for which they had sued him. But Boehm adds the amazing intelligence that that was not all that Jacob Reiff said on that occasion:
". . .the congregation made a wonderful discovery, for as they gathered one by one and perhaps 30 men were assembled, then Reiff said plainly before us all: 'Doctor Diemer, Peter and Michael Hillegass are church-robbers, they steal the bread out of the mouths of the Reformed people in Philadelphia, of their children and children's children'" (Letter of 1734, 236). But while what Jacob Reiff says next has Boehm in an ecstasy, it depends how discerning the reader is as to whose ox gets gored.
In all these charges, countercharges, claims, complaints, boasts, fratricides and follies which of these characters ever admits to anything? Right. Nobody.
It's like Boehm says in his letter of 1741, no one would take responsibility for the problem: "Diemer and six others with him are just as much to blame for the loss and deception as Reiff" (3l5). Hinke comments that "the secret of the whole trouble was that when the investment of the money in merchandise proved a total failure, none of the participants was willing to shoulder the loss, hence Reiff was unwilling to make a settlement" (Life and Letters, 44).
It is therefore all the more astonishing then that when Jacob Reiff says before them all that Diemer and the Hillegasses are robbers, he adds, "I admit that I am a church-thief, but they are church-thieves as well as I. If they had not written to me, I would not have done it" (236).This doesn’t sound like a thief, it sounds like an honest man vexed. The fact that he gets sued lends even more credence to his honesty. Boehm gives the gist of this letter that Diemer and six others had sent to Reiff in Holland.
This letter, cited above, we cite again for the added intelligence its repetition gives:
" 'Jacob Reiff shall take the collected money, buy merchandise with it and ship it to them. For his profits he is to have six per cent. And on his return to this country the money which he spent shall be refunded to him.' This letter, which certainly ten of us read, was signed by seven men (who had usurped the eldership) with their own hands. They wrote further in their letter to Reiff, that he should do so at their risk and whatever might come of it they would guarantee him against loss with all their possessions, of which, beside them, not a member of the whole congregation knew anything" (Letters, 1734, 236).
But usurpers or not, the seven who signed the letter were the leaders of the congregation, and they were the original seven from Philadelphia who had signed the first letter authorizing the initial collections.
Also obviously, if the congregation knew nothing of their usurpation, how could Jacob Reiff? But this second letter and the revelations surrounding the events of its being made public caused those seven signers to be "deposed" from their church offices: "Whereupon the congregation met again and came to the inevitable resolution to depose these men for these and other, sufficiently grave causes " (Letters, 1734, 236).
So while Weiss was invited to own responsibility and Diemer, et al, were proven to own it, only Reiff did.
The Petition of Diemer, Hillegass, et. al.
"THE PETITION OF Jacob Diemer, Michael Hillegas, Peter Hillegas, Joost Schmidt, Hendrick Weller Jacob Siegel, Wilhelm Rohrich. In Behalf of themselves and divers others members of the German Reformed Church in Philada." contended that Jacob Reiff would not give THEM an account of the monies collected. While this directly concerns their suit it is also raises a broader issue.
They say that "Jacob Reiff tho' often requested by those Complts refuses to render any account of the sd. Money, or from whom, or to what use he received the same, or to pay or give security for the payment thereof to the Church Wardens or Ancients of the Reformed Church at Philada." (Dubbs, 59)
Diemer's Letter to the Dutch Synods, The Dutch Synod's to James Logan
This was filed November 23, 1732. But the fundamental ill will of Dr. Diemer against Reiff that obviously preceded this petition lasted an even longer time. Long after failing all legal recourse in Philadelphia courts Diemer was still plaguing the Dutch Synods in 1736 with his charges and countercharges, causing the Synods more or less ignorantly to address James Logan, the President of the Philadelphia Council, April 20, 1739, pleading that he "prosecute Reiff. . .church robbery" (Dubbs, 68). Of course the Hollanders knew nothing firsthand about the case and Diemer, easily introduced a serpent into their bosom.
One of the things they did not know included the above-mentioned defrocking of Diemer, Hillegas, etc. by the congregation from their elderships in April, 1734, the cause being their aforesaid direction to Reiff that the investments in merchandise be carried out. Fortunately for him, Jacob Reiff was able to produce their letter to this effect. Who can doubt that otherwise they'd have denied the whole thing. This demonstrates that Diemer's letter of 1736 is more in the nature of vendetta, a pretense of seeking a solution to the problem. He no longer had any official capacity (cf, Hinke, 44) if in fact he ever had any at all. Boehm declares the "John Jacob Diemer, the physician, never was an elder" (Letters, 236).
But furthermore, the Holland Synods do not seem to know that as early as October 1, 1736 the Amsterdam Classis had written to Weiss to the effect that (in Boehm's paraphrase) "Weiss should think the matter over and straighten out the affair of the collection-money, for Reiff could not be forced, since he, Weiss, was the recipient of the money and, therefore, had to answer for it" (Letter of 1741, 328). The right hand of the Classis hides its actions from the left hand of the Synods.
II. JACOB'S SLANDER
"An den fingern hangen geblieben" ( A Committee of the Classis of Amsterdam, in Harbaugh, Fathers, 268),"yea, the most of the monies collected remained in the hands of Mr. Reif.")
The Part Is Not the Whole.
l. A chronological approach to the problem of Jacob's slander does not fully explain its continuation. Chronologically, we cite the letters of Boehm (1728-1748), the answer of Jacob Reiff (1733) and the letters of M. Schlatter, but why were these read selectively by later historians Harbaugh and Hinke? Was it to protect the reputation of the Church itself and its pastors?
It makes sense to begin with Schlatter and see what kind of reputations he established for the various characters. (add here Schlatters call).
Schlatter himself is involved in this since he was empowered by the Synods to resolve the case in 1746. On the 8th (of September) he went "to see Mr. J. Reif, to require of him, agreeably to the instructions of the Synod, an account of the moneys collected in Holland by him and Rev. G. M. Weiss, sixteen years previously, for the benefit of the churches of Pennsylvania ("Schlatter's Appeal" in The Life of Rev. Michael Schlatter by Rev. H. Harbaugh, Philadelphia: Lindsay and Blakiston, 1857, 127). As Schlatter says, "this disagreeable business was not disposed of till the beginning of the following year, 1747" (133).
The problem with the settlement seems to be:
l) that the terms of the settlement are insufficient,
2) the delay of l6 years is too long
3) no responsibility is fixed for the lapses.
By the time Harbaugh came to judge the matter, also in an 1857 publication (in his The Fathers of The German Reformed Church in America, Lancaster: Sprenger and West haeffer, Vol. I), the" disagreeable business" had become a "crooked business." Harbaugh declares Weiss innocent: "it is evident that Mr. Weiss was not implicated in this crooked business."(268) But this is not so evident when we look at the facts. These sometimes include disagreements between allies such as the Amsterdam Classis (October l, l736, Hinke,328) and Boehm (236) about who is responsible. Undeniably, the efficient cause of all that happened is the Rev. George Michael Weiss (add Dubbs here).
l) It was Weiss who initially deposed Boehm.2) It was Weiss who first conceived of raising money in Holland and that perhaps not so much for the churches but for his own salary, "he intends to put this out at interest, so that he can live on it." (Letters, 208).3) "there are few who believe that he will ever be seen in this wild country, if his plans …miscarry." (198)4) It was Weiss to whom the money was given and it was Weiss who turned it over to Jacob Reiff.
As already cited, the Amsterdam Classis recognized Weiss' responsibility in this when it first attempted a settlement of the problem by advising Weiss ( a full four years after the event) that he "should think the matter over and straighten out the affair of the collection-money, for Reiff could not be forced, since he, Weis, was the recipient of the money and, therefore had to answer for it." (According to Boehm's letter to the Classis of Amsterdam, July 25, 1741, in Hinke, 328. Cf. The Eccl. Records of N. Y., Vol. IV, p. 2676 for their original letter of October 1, 1736).
5) It was Weiss, not Reiff, who in fact "departed the province" and would not return to give any account of himself or the money.
There is much evidence of Weiss' changeable if not pusillanimous nature. He reneges his agreement with Boehm to reconcile (and Hinke blames his congregation for this). When he goes to collect the money that he asked for he is not sure he will return (which is why Jacob Reiff goes; they are sure he will return). Weiss departs Philadelphia immediately and won't return to give his own account. Of course, previously, having been in the country only a week he condemned Boehm. He is both rash and weak!
2. The recourse of the historians and officials of the German Reformed Church in almost every instance of their pastors' failings has been to blame the congregations. History has thus become a public relations campaign. Harbaugh takes as a given that the evidence alleged by the adversarial complainants against Jacob Reiff in l732 is true, but does not actually say so! These "witnesses" there are his truth to the "crooked business." A re-examination of the witnesses is in order. But if the Reverend Schlatter and the Reverend Harbaugh suggest impropriety, the Reverend William J. Hinke in his Life and Letters of the Rev. John Philip Boehm (Philadelphia:Sunday School Board of the Reformed Church in the United States, 1916), following the passions of Boehm, alleges, among others, forgery. This is especially troubling in the context of Hinke's admission that "the evidence is somewhat contradictory coming to us from Weiss, Reiff and Boehm. Selecting the statements of Boehm as giving us most likely the true version of what happened. . . "(42) Hinke goes on to doubt every evidence of exculpation, even when it is from Boehm's pen.
3. This becomes all the more important seeing that the past records of these events and the judgments they give are now defunct. There is no longer a German Reformed Church, it having merged in l934 to form the Evangelical and Reformed Church and subsequent to that was absorbed into the United Church of Christ. This church history has now been sanitized to such an extent that Jacob Reiff is not mentioned in the gathering of church funds in Europe and so the judgments of the church scholars go unchallenged.
Aside from mistaking the part for the whole and piling on, the German Reformed historians are both an essential part of the conflict and of its solution. But Hinke has also done a service in his translation of Boehm's letters and so has the Reformed Church for publishing them. The problem is that the published record has not been studied enough, for while Boehm is Jacob Reiff's chief accuser, he is also his chief vindicator. Without the material in the Boehm letters much less would be known about Jacob Reiff, his character, his fortunes and misfortunes against the religious background of the time.
III. Church Government: By The People, For the People?
A large part of the background of these problems relates to a need to have the old world authority to baptize, or serve communion, or in fact to make any decisions relating to local government of churches and decisions by the people themselves. The Reformed suspicion was against the Congregationalist attitudes that surrounded them. Politically of course, these became democratic attitudes.
How dare the burghers make their own decisions? "If the people rule every vagabond may cause factions," says Boehm (H. 332).
The authorities, wherever they were, feared variously a return to when everyone did what was right in his own eyes. Boehm says again that "every one imagined that his own free will was the best "(H. 239). The Classis of Amsterdam told its New York ministers this as well: "We consider ourselves under great obligations to you for your charity and labor, as well as for your great care against congregationalism. This, you rightly judge, produces very injurious results" (H. 226, 1730).
Nonetheless the appeal of a church order was not so great as the appeal that Boehm complained Peter Miller was making, that he ". . .called the Heidelberg Catechism a work of men, adding that Christians were a free people, and had no need on earth of a head, that Christ in heaven was their only head, and that he would not allow himself to be subjected to a human yoke, etc." (Letter of l734 in Letters, 255-56). John Peter Miller was pastor of the Skippack Reformed after Boehm was rejected, also of Philadelphia and Germantown, but only for about a year from the fall of l730 to l73l when he became pastor of Goshenhoppen till 1734.
It is doubly ironic that the Reiff Church began as it did as a congregational matter, with "the people" inaugurating Boehm "with tears," only to later have its congregational wishes denied by the authorities. That is, they first organized and invested Boehm congregationally. Boehm was then divested denominationally, by Weiss, then reinvested denominationally by the Reformed authorities, only in turn to be divested congregationally!
What the Classis was first moved to ratify, it thereafter denied, but it is obvious that the Skippack folk were too congregational at the heart. As Muhlenberg told Pastor Voigt, "it is not in accord with the gospel of Christ that a man should force himself upon a congregation against the wish of the majority of members." (Journals, III, 8) In a similar vein Muhlenberg insisted that ". . .in religious and church matters, each has the right to do what he pleases. . .everything depends on the vote of the majority." (Journals, l742, I, 67) Of course it is recalled that the issues of church government were the least desirable face of the Calvinists.
The idea of self-government, government by the people was feared by other authorities in Pennsylvania, but not by Penn.
IV. The Will of the People: CONGREGATIONAL VS. DENOMINATIONAL
Follow the Money
The question is whether we should interpret the man by the numbers or the numbers by the man. Which will afford a better chance, knowing that a man may dissemble or that numbers may lie? How many robbers up and confess?
Rather they lie, blame others to save their skin. And what is it that makes all jealousies, lies, betrayals worthwhile? Why it is money! Not the grail, justice, democracy, but money. And what do we judge when the numbers contradict the man, take a DNA sample we cannot do. Yes there are lies and liars that history mistakes as truths and truth tellers. There is already skein upon skein of interpretations in the tale. Consider that Weiss is excused from giving any account at all of the money that was put into his hands merely on the basis of an oath he took before leaving town! But Jacob Reiff is accused on the same basis and unbelieved in the oath he took before a full court but he stayed in town.
Dubbs says that Jacob Reiff ". . .was, to say the least, very careless in keeping his accounts." But (57) Weiss says he didn't do it. The Synod in l739 refers to ". . .the bad way of doing of these two persons." ("Papers," 68) Of course the Synod was so blind they gave an authority to Diemer for inquiry. Boehm was enraged at their promiscuous spending but he was mad at Jacob Reiff for his keeping title to the log church. Why would church scholar William Hinke. . .select "the statements of Boehm as giving us most likely the true version of what happened" (42) as if that were anything other than mistaking the part for the whole? It makes one think there are issues under the table not being declared. Notwithstanding his absence of four to five years Jacob Reiff is blamed by Boehm for Boehm's failed relations with the Skippack community.
Reverends vs. Reiff
The adversarial nature of these affairs has been worsened by time, formalized by centuries. But at least some thought should be given to the idea that if the shepherds are divided why should the sheep be blamed, which leads to a closer look at those shepherds. There were some peculiarities afoot. They were doctrinally exact and cold as ice. The problem manifests itself in church splits, wars between pastors, claims and counterclaims, but also in the statement, another "curious coincidence" of Sachse's, "that nearly all the leading spirits of the mystic movement at Ephrata were recruited from the Reformed church (I, 211)." Likewise he says that in the Tulpehocken country the "Mosaic ceremonies and customs were derived and practiced by the German settlers, whose reason was almost dethroned with religious excitement and vagaries." (I, 116). And that "a majority of names. . .members of the congregation. . .were originally of the Reformed faith. (118)."
Henry Harbaugh. The Life of Rev. Michael Schlatter With a Full Account of His Travels and Labors among The Gemans. Philadephia: Lindsay and Blakiston. 1857.
