A complete curation must account for the artifacts, the handcrafts of linens, collections of pewter and glass, the quilts, and the books, along with the paintings and wood work. When these are confined to individual pieces the task can be complete, but when as in the case of houses, there is the whole house, it is more monumental. We have both to contend along with in the sometimes plenteous details and vignettes of the lives that precede us, who have been through as many societal and technological changes as we undergo when they held their peace in famine and war. We propose to issue a full color selection of the lots of these while they still exist in the physical world, for there have been a series of curators from the nineteenth century who collected them and kept them in attic trunks and bookshelves. While much of these are collected on blogs with photographs a hard copy is best to survive.

Whether the artifacts or the spiritual, intellectual historys are paramount, they exist together in a culture of roving charcoal artists and itinerant vendors. But the intellectual contentions from 1732 in the case of Jacob Reiff, called the elder, and in the deeds and agreements signed by his father before, Hans George, are firmly documented as a benchmark for other properties in 1717. Arguably Hans Geoge had arrived earlier. The upright character and principles of these we will be finding out.

Quiescent in the past, when brought to light it is a tale worth hearing among a series of tales that happen all around it. Account of the surroundings occurs in the work entitled Pennsylvania Lawless, deceptive because we have not found a word to define what they really were compared to ourselves who have set aside all the principles and customs they hold dear, so we are the lawless. That title must be intended to attract like to like, even if unlike. To a poetic mind such speech occurs to capture the indignity and paradox of those who labor to serve.

All told then that makes three volumes,1) a slender one on fine paper of photographs of the artifacts, 2) a biography of a family of Lower Salford, Skippack, Bally-Butter Valley, Worcester, Oley and surroundings where they lie in cemeteries from the start, and 3) a larger context of the movements of the time, of great interest and filled with creative and impulsive personalities.

These people are part of the Swiss Palatinate peoples who became part of the United States when it was a British colony. Swiss Reformed and Mennonite settlers of Philadelphia, Germantown and Skippack who moved from Germantown, birthplace of that culture called Pa Dutch, north to an area of the Perkiomen Valley in the locale of Skippack or Schiweach Schuippach. Nine generations of these families lived in this vicinity from about 1700 on until my father's birth when that generation returned to the Philadelphia area again, after long existence as farmers and traders to be shop keepers and employees. It is an ironic full circle that I was born in Germantown myself after they had come and gone and come back, and I started the first 5 yrs of life there. When realized and discovered the existence of this family and its community I wanted to reconstruct it from the inside out, showing the relations in as great detail as possible. These start with the identity of names places and biographies that follow.

Reife nach Pennsylvanien. History of Skippack

Reife nach Pennsylvanien

Reife nach Pennsylvanien (Stuttgart,1756) is the title in German of Mittelberger's work, Journey to Pennsylvania. The word for journey in German is reise, which becomes Reife from the convention of the long s. Also called a ligature, the long s has no bar through it, which at first seems to substitute f for s. In type setting there is also a greater need for s. It however appears immediately to the eye as Reife so that in its original the title is almost Reiff nach Pennsylvanien.

Muhlenberg spells Reiff as Reiss and Reif. He gives Reif in the name of "George Reif, Jacob Reif's son" (Journals III, 344, c. 1780). Reiss however denotes the widowed Anna Reiff and her son Jacob where the Church Record says, 'Widow Reiss, mother of Jacob Reiss, was buried January 8, 1753" (Journals I, 352). Conrad Reiff was of course the target of several pages of fulminations in Mittelberger's Journey (see 110f) that makes this confusion interesting. That any of this seems peculiar can be perused at will online here.

It's one thing to seek such matters out, it's another for them to summon you, as this. Take for instance the restraint of the world so utterly present in these Mennonite and pietistic writings, whatever that comes to mean. If Reiff is a Reise, a journey, a Reife upon his Journey, as Mitteberger's title, the Hebrew word for Hebrew, both man and language, is also journey, to cross over, or pass through, "a passer-through...one who takes into account that which is outside of himself, and so "does not the world made visible run the risk...of becoming an idol?" (Marc-Alain Ouaknin, The Burnt Book, 73).

What is the visible and the invisible world? The highest authorities are best. Take Emmanuel Levinas who says, invisibility "is a way of signifying quite different from that which connects exposition to sight...it is the very transcending characteristic of this beyond that is signification." (Otherwise, 100). In a word, what is the invisible before "showing itself in the said," in the present "always already in the past behind which the present delay is," "straiting with its furrows the clarity of the ostensible?" What is the invisible? It is "a responsibility with regard to men we do not even know," it is a responsibility for my neighbor (100). " This incommensurability with consciousness, which becomes a trace of the who knows where, is not the inoffensive relationship of knowing in which everything is equalized, nor the indifference of spatial contiguity; it is an assignation of me by another, a responsibility with regard to men we do not even know.

Preservations of Gravestones

I wonder if we do not start with the cemeteries and work back. If this seems haphazard, maybe it can read like the episodes of a novel. The gravestones show the pathos of their lives, the humanity, its inventory comes at a later date, like our own, and looks back, in this case in the Tombstone Inscriptions of the Old Mennonite Cemetery of Hereford a work collected by Henry Mack, that maternal, through Annie Mack, scion of Macks being a most significant joining with the Reiff, 1934.

This typescript was discovered in the estate of the granddaughter of Henry S. Mack (1854-1946), Anna Elizabeth Reiff Young (1910-2005). Henry Mack lived with his granddaughter and daughter, Anna Mack Reiff (1880-1970) from 1936 to 1944. "Henry S. Mack was born near Bally, Pa., June 20, 1854; died at the home of his son (Philip), Cornwells Heights, Pa., Oct. 23, 1946; aged 92 y. 4 m. 3 d. Over seventy-two years ago he united with the Bally, Pa., Mennonite Church, where he retained membership the rest of his life, serving as chorister for sixty years."

Record is organized by 18 "Rows" of varying length and eight appended,"Toward Meeting House." The originals are in German, but as the preface explains, "the inscriptions are copied as closely as possible as they appear on the tombstones, and for the benefit of the future generations, the German was translated to the English as closely as possible."

Preservative of Gravestones

Without the preservative of gravestones, each generation conceives itself self-generated and sustained, without relation. We try to come to terms with a loss of continuity, called isolation. Do we solve it by analyzing those fears we cannot see which cause our self exaltations? What separates father and son if not the sons fear of the father’s expectations, retrogressive centuries removed? We could reconcile father and son, fathers and sons. They go on like that forever. Gravestones and books cry out.The heirlooms have a voice. The china speaks, the chests, the linens. In the cases where these have personal identity they give their names, which in itself revives the innateness of the names themselves. Hovering around each example is a little light if we see it, a context for viewing the object if we can find it. Names are illumined by other names, linens by linens, chests by chests, books by books, quilts by quilts. Right away to place the names and their creations among their contemporaries is a way of proceeding. Contextualizing takes us into history, art, language with some startling surprises. The previous dark is shot with light. It makes us think even more light can dawn. In the end the whole is light if we find it. The recovery process seeks an heirloom as a means of restoration. Going back we track the antiques heard of but not found, the etched wood signs in the attic barn. More often the last will exists. More than the will, the man’s own words exist, impossibly true, court filings defending his actions, his inner thoughts and conflicts in the quotation of his words in letters of his antagonists prove his character, a father with an edge, but not a diplomat. Moreover this seems a family trait. It is all context and text, celebrations false and true, involvement in controversies of another kind, resolved in the will to faith. The more you look the more you see. I’m watching a hyperbole develop. As the lines increase so do the contexts. We see it better reversed, when they converge, concentrate when we are born, bring the essence to a focus as though the generations had a purpose, something to reveal, that this could be named, these attitudes repeated again and again. It seems best not to name them here. Let the details, artifacts, histories, contexts speak for themselves. Let each generation name itself, but the name is the same.

The names are not John but Johannes, hymn titles German (5.21-23), if that is not too simpleminded to say. Henry Mack, one collator, rightly observed that 25 percent of these names reached full maturity, meaning three score and ten. We expand the inquiry to seek reasons. We ask of the death of children, read between the lines.

Row 1

There are some surprises. Compare 1.8 and 1.9, two children born apparently of the same parents, Anna and Henrich Bechtel, both who would die in childhood, but 33 years apart! David dies in 1810 at 14 days and Henrich at 3 years in 1846!

Henry and Cathrina Stauffer, (1.3-4) died at 1 and 6, but others are anonymous, known only as "a daughter" 1.6), or "a son" (1.10), as though the pain of naming were so great it overwhelmed the birth. That is why the poet speaks the unspeakable, as our brother William Blake has done:

I have no name
I am but two days old.
What shall I call thee?
I happy am-
Joy is my name.

I prefer he had no name but then those who do will think it odd, but who will you think he is and how will we know? He has no name, how could he have a name, he is one who came the way all of us might prefer to think we have come, special to ourselves no doubt trumpets our fantasy of mind, until reason kicks in and we boast not in the cup of the great. How does anybody escape this illusion? In their public character they seem humble and empathic who are really interested in ourselves To the world he is so wrapped up in his coming we forget there is to be an exit. Then the brain waves change. You didn’t know it is coming, it takes about seven decades to get the news at last, peace, hope, death.

Of twelve born in the 18th century, eleven children die age six or less.

If Row 1 signifies the founding of the cemetery then 8 children at its start might suggest them buried elsewhere and moved here when the graveyard was begun. The dates are not quite right for that however, so even more it is a terrible run. No matter if they lived six days (1.11) or sixty, their lives are counted to the day. Each life, each day is precious, each hour, more so in the case of Henry, son of William and Anna Mack, whose life is tabulated to the half day, who "died Sept. 30th, 1846. Age, 1 yr. 9 mos. 2 1/2 days" (2.9).

There are 40 burials in Row 1. Twelve born 18th century, Oberholtzers, Gehmans. Eleven children die, six or less.

Spellings may vary, for names were not always coded for information bases, compare Clemmer 1.12 and Klemmer, 1.16 or Klemer, 2.18. Sometimes different spellings occur in the same line, Oberholtser and Oberholser (1.39), or differ from a previous, as Oberholtzer of 1.18-23.
We read the old spellings with joy, of Cathrina, (1.4), or Salharena, (1.32), or Therusah 3.1.

Say it again! Eight of the thirteen names on the stones tabled on page one are children. We can’t compare it to war, these people fled the study of war, our only recourse is to compare it to life: Carry your sorrow, bear your grief to one pierced breast of love, the Lord's, and there we lie. In convention, the way the spaces fall, makes an "accident" at the end of the first page and provides them with a shepherd, "At Rest," the Rev. John M. Ehst, who "served this congregation 37 yrs."

Row 2

There are 35 burials in Row 2, eight children, seven born in the 18th century. As if in delirium it seems like we keep saying this and the numbers change each time. If you speak a word frequently enough it becomes nonsense the more you say it. Consider how this happens with the word “died.” Who died? What death? Whose death is this, this one and this? It is an odd word that in the context of things means something entirely opposite, for all these deaths are lives. Which one of the stones reads, “the dead shall live, the earth shall cast out her dead?"

"Klemer 2.18 is yet another spelling.
(No name) as if it were a name, is supplied by the inventory 2.18.
Folk 2.21, Thomas, 2.22, English names.

Sahra Hunsbergerin 2.30. "less 11 days" 2.31.

Maybe it is more revealing to see when they were born than when they die. Early years outweigh the rest. By this measure, while 18 died in the 18th cent, how many were born then? I can’t say. I was 3 at the celebration of Henry Mack's ninetieth birthday, nearly the youngest in the family where he was the oldest. It is a great privilege to take up his work.

On Row 3:

Numbers changing again: 18 born 18th cent.7 children.

Old names and forms: Funkin, 2.10, Salharena 1.32, Sahra Hunsbergerin 2.30, Bechtelin 3.33, Meyern 3.10, Kindig 3.13 Therusah 3.1, Septimus 3.19. Bennevell, 4.10.

Oddities: Weiz'n 4.13. Latchaw, 4.14.

There is a change of typist at Row 4.6. “Mos. yrs.” no longer abbreviate, some more obvious mistakes, Weiz'n? 4.13, Latschar/Latscher 4.21,22, matrimon[e]y misspelled, "Nearly" capitalized, 4.21. Probably the first style of typing was Henry Mack for its punctiliousness. Then it changes back at 4.30 and continues in the first manner.

Perhaps the stones are like the paper programs handed out today with text and hymn numbers, 4.15.

Preachers- John M. Ehst, 1.13 Samuel C. Clemmer, 2.19, John Gehman, 1.35, Heinrich Funk 3.31, John C. Bechtel 3.29, Deacon Philip Hoch, 3.32, John B. Bechtel 4.26, Abraham Bechtel 4.47

Notable age: Elizabeth Mengel, b.1741, 1.33, Hoch, b. 1755, 3.32, his wife Anna, b. 1762, 3.33, Abraham Gehman, b. 1766 1.37, Killion Weiss, b. 1751 4.32, wife Catharine, b. 1764, 4.31, Abraham Bechtel. b. 1749 4.47

Make a list of people born before the Revolution.

Row 4: 9 children

Row 5 notes:

9 children, Isaac Bauman, 5.30, "Age, 32 hours."

5.28 Maria Bauman, 9 sons, age 40.

5.44 Heinrich Stauffer, m. three times, in succession, but his wives are buried in reverse order from his grave, the first farthest away, 5.47

What pantywaists women and men today. Anna Bauman had 9 sons! What about companionship, friends? Unless you see their lives as prisons. Who lived better?

Row 6 notes: Bachtly 6.17

Almost all 19th century births. Of 22 names in Row 6, nine are children. 5 child graves in a row, 6.5-9. Then an 82 year old. We'd like to see them more interspersed. The children are fully equal in their humanity and its record with the old. Clara, 6.9, was loved beyond telling but not beyond recall. We feel her loss even now.

There are people now weeping beside these stones at the early deaths. No death is too late to bear, only today, then they died before their time. At the grave of Lydia Stauffer Row 6.21 her daughter of three, 6.20, husband and father John has inscribed the lines written there. "Thou art gone to thy rest while thy ties were the dearest, With smiles on thy lip, and delight in thine eye; While love was the brightest, and friendship sincerest; Desirous to live thou were ready to die." Ready to die. That is the very spirit of gelassenheit that Henry's daughter Anna showed when her daughter Elizabeth nearly died in her first year. After all was said and done Anna released her to God. This was important for us all, for without Elizabeth none of this would every have been written, nor any of these Pennsylvania Blogs. Elizabeth you see started it all. Her nephew had it handed to him. What a gift life is!

How to visit a graveyard. How is the pie? It’s good, but I have been to the graves. It is unlike anything else. When you go in person you cannot feel it as well, too many sense impressions. Here at leisure, contemplating the fact of the life, the sorrows…

Tombstone politics in 5.20. two children Irwen and Nelson, died two days apart.

They say no atheists in foxholes, but what about graves? Rimbaud, Buñuel, Borges and Stevens could not resist the faith that came to their mortal minds. What principles have hypocrites! No atheists in graves? Live by doubt, die by faith? Taunted at the Judgment for their cremation, evolutionists hasten the “ashes to ashes, dust to dust.” Natural selection hastens their decay in the ground. Question the time. It’s all on the stones with the suddenness of life.

There are tombstones in at least four other cemeteries, in Worcester, Lower Salford, West Laurel Hill, North Cemetery.

2. ---That being the case in our backlog of ages, to return to the start, or near the start, we mark the grave of Anna Marie Reiff, spouse of Hans George Reiff, mother of five children who left there mark in our book.

Anna reiff’s donation in the Skippack Alms Book was to help fund the new Mennonite Meeting House built on land gotten from henry 25 Jan 1738 Riffe II, 35

Anna Reiff's "Neat Hand"

The single most discovery, if you can call discovery seeing what is right in front of your eyes, was when in 2012 I stopped at the Mennonite heritage center with the idea of photographing the large bible done at Ephrata and along the way asked to see if I could look at the Skippack Alms Book, the oldest of its sort, begun about 1739 or so. As usual I began at the back and paged forward. Of course this wasn’t the original, but a copy made for such inquiries.. I work like that with serendipity on one hand and naivete on the other,, paging. The discovery happened though on the first page so I had to wait to read that in 1739 Anna Reiffen gave 10 pounds for what I later concluded was for the building of a new Meeting house..

Religion was a large factor among those palatinate folk who ordered their lives by beliefs hardly know of today, These will enter into other discussion as we climb the limbs of this tree. Amng those who speculate about origins of families, they first want to know when they came to PA, then maybe as important what they were, Mennonite, Reformed, Baptist, Schwenkfelder, Moravian… the list goes on. Philadelphia produced a list of 20 or thirty different religions and cults from the tame to the bizarre. So antiquaries look at religion to trace the comings and goings of the ancestors. Sometimes they leave heir belongings there for later generations to find. Names carved into old beams for example, or in Alms books We also want to know of their education and their means of livelihood, their children and grandchildren. It is truly a onus if somehow information survives in somebody’s letter a or diary. His is supercharged if there is a court brief or govt appt or sentence and if they have been embroiled in controversy we can take it to the bank. All these surround the tale of Anna Reiffen, the long aged spouse of Hans George Reiff who came to PA we know not when, but we do where, because there is a deed of 1717 where the boundary of another settler, the Mennonite preacher, Michael Ziegler…(1709)is drawn by reference to that of this Reiff. Reiffen by the way is just the way of saying that Anna Reiffen is married, meaning the wife of Hans George. Clearly they occupied that place before 1717, but we don’t need to know when to appreciate what we do know. Hans G. was a blacksmith, he had a property of acres in what was called the Pennypacker tract 20 miles from Germantown where most of these palatinates began entry to the country when it was getting too crowded so they moved to the country.. They have 4 sons and daughter.

But first Hans G and Anna. She lived so long her life itself is a record, even if we start with her death and work back. She left PA in 1753 with the adages of 90 years gathered around her and because by then her troubles and trials were well known, and her sons and daughte, better known, especially her youngest son Jacob, called the Elder, an informal title, a gathering to celebrate her demise has held that winter. It was the largest celebration anybody could remember and drew to itself everybody around. After all it was free food and drink and talk. There are two specific notable references to it, notes made after a long funeral oration of the Lutheran pastor Henry Muhlenberg, by himself, for he kept a journal, and a couple years later published in the famous journey to PA by the qua organist, journalist busybody Gottlieb Mettenberger after he couldn’t stand the frontier any more and went back to where he once belonged

Not many immigrants spoke or wrote English in the beginning. The women of the Hans George Reiff family did. "Anna Reiff wrote in English," is repeated by Hershey (MHEP, October 1995), who calls it "an unusual document which she wrote in 1773," but does not say what the document was.

Was It Anna or Anna Maria Who Wrote in English?

This was first mentioned by Heckler Heckler (The History of Harleysville and Lower Salford Township, 1888) who said "there has been some inquiry as to who his [Jacob Reiff's] wife was, but it is not known. She probably was a woman of some distinction because she wrote a neat hand in English, which German women could not do." Efforts to identify this writing having failed, Harry Reiff suggested that it was Anna Maria, wife of Hans George and not Anna, wife of Jacob the Elder, who so wrote and that the writing was of Hans George's will. But that would of course be 1726, but things have gotten confused before this. Harry observes this possibility because Anna Maria was the educated daughter of a Dutch Reformed Church official:

"the only document in English that I know of that may have been written by Anna Reiff is the Hans George Reiff will, now in the files in Philadelphia City Hall. Since the will was probated in 1727, it is unlikely that it was written by Jacob's wife Anna, [he means because Jacob did not marry until 1733] but possibly by Jacob's mother Anna. No proof of who or when; and additionally, I've heard that the original will was in German, but no proof of that either. Some years ago I read one of Henry Dotterer's reports from his European travels in which he noted the possibility that Hans George Reiff married Anna Maria, the educated daughter of a Dutch Reformed churchman. If indeed she wrote Hans George's will, she was surely educated. Now, the historian Henry Dotterer wrote several books in his historical journeys. Two of the published books are in the stacks of the Pennsylvania Historical Society in Philadelphia, but there is a third unpublished one which I saw about 10 years ago. They wouldn't let me make a copy of it, but as I recall, Dotterer recounted his visit to the Netherlands and the Dutch Reformed Church archives, where he found data that Hans George married an educated daughter of a church minion (HER, 20 November 2002)."

Confusion of the Annas arose when Jacob's wife was initially called Anna Maria (Fisher). Glenn Landis says,

"I have been in contact with Harry Reiff...and he states that he has investigated the Fisher connection and finds no evidence for it and now would omit the reference. The "Anna Maria" part may have come from confusion with Jacob's sister or mother who were both Anna Maria. James Y. Heckler...says that Jacob Reiff's wife was Anna. He repeats this in several different contexts. Harry Reiff now agrees with this and says he knows of no primary evidence that she was called Anna Maria. The graves of Jacob and his wife in the Skippack Mennonite Cemetery are marked Jacob Reiff and Anna Reiff" (Letter to Richard D. Davis, 18 Feb 1994).

Anna's "neat hand" is practically identical to Heckler's remark about what Samuel Pennypacker says of Hans George Reiff's witness of the Mennonite Trust Agreement: "Hans George Reiff, a member of the German Reformed Church, who wrote a neat signature" ("Beber's Township and the Dutch Patroons"). The neat hand, putative education of Anna Maria and signature of Hans George, coupled with the vocation of Jacob as deputy registrar of wills all suggest education and knowledge of English, as if they were virtually a family of scribes.

Nothing of Hans George’s wife Anna Maria is known that does not enhance her character and intelligence as witnessed in Muhlenberg's remembrance of her in his Journals (I, 352f) in 1753. In his will his neighbors “Isaac Duboy and Lorrents Schweitzer” are charged to see that the will is adequately performed. “Jno Scholl” and “Garret InDehaven” are witnesses with a “Robert Jones,” and the inventory of his estate is signed by “Lorentz Livnya Mornn (sic)” and “Johannes Lefebe” which identities might tell a little more about Hans George, at least by association.

Hans George Reiff

Hans or John?

The immediate tale of this family involves the heart of conflicts of 18th century Pennsylvania, which begins in Philadelphia with the father Hans George Reiff (1659-1726).

Some biographers insist he is John, that Hans is a diminutive (Riffe, 1), but the deed of 1717 contradicts that. It is in the name of Hans George and his signature of the Mennonite agreement of 1725 is Hans George, so John is mere anglicizing. There was no contemporary reference to him as "John" Reiff except the will. Geneologist Harry E. Reiff (HER), calls it "rather a cockeyed mark," suggests from the mark and mere initials JR on the will that he may have been illiterate, but we know he “wrote a neat hand” (Pennypacker) in the trust agreement and so consider that he was infirm or incapable of other signing at the end. Also his son Jacob Reiff may have had ready to hand a seal denoting JR. HER says, (20 Nov 2002) “I’ve heard that the original will was in German, but no proof of that either,” except of course for the sudden appearance of “John” at the end of it. He adds, “the archives in Philadelphia City Hall are not at all always in German-far from it (Letter of 11 Dec 2001).

Evidence that current copies of the will are translations occurs in the correction of “Sulford” to Salford in its opening with the Englished name, “John George Reiff of Salford Township.” “Salford,” is corrected from “Sulford,” as the Historical Society document suggests “John” corrected from “Hans.” In the modern records of the Pennsylvania Historical Society he is “John George” Reiff so there is pressure to conform to this correction for clarity: ”Copy of the last will and testament of John George Reiff, of Sulford Township, Philadelphia County, Pa., dated 15 December 1726.” He is called John George Reiff in an article in 1922 identifying one witness to the will as Johannes Scholl (The Perkiomen Region, Vol I, 105). Riffe gives his name as “John (Hans) George Reiff” (20) on a lease agreement of 1724 and release of deed May 15, 16. He cites as source James Heckler’s “History of Lower Salford Township; Reiff Family Sketch; Notes,” but Heckler there refers to Hans George’s son, “George, or John George” (24). Heckler in fact calls the father “Hans George.” Later however in Heckler’s narrative, Henry S. Dotterer calls him “John George Reiff” (30), but reverts to “Hans George” in referring to land Jacob Reiff purchased in 1727 “adjoining lands of Hans George Reiff” (31). This doesn't prove much except that Hans George was a slightly more prevalent usage in 1886.

Hans George Reiff, 1717 and the Mennonite Trust

The genealogy of Hans George Reiff in America extends to 1507 in Switzerland, according to GENi, through progenitors Hans Heinrich Reiff ("Hans Henrich Ryff") 1622-1689), Jagli Jacob Reiff (b. 1592), Jacob I Ryeff (1566), Hans Reiff (Ryeff) (1528), Jacob Ryeff (1507). Prior to arrival in the new world the written form of Reiff seems to occur first as a name in the region of Strasbourg. The Chronicon Alsatiae by Bernhardt Hertzog (Strasbourg, l592) reports a coat-of-arms and a list of services performed by men of that name: "Reintz Reiff was in the Council of Strasbourg in 1338, Peter Reiff held a government appointment in 1364 and Adam Reiff became A[r?]mmeister in 1445" (translated by Henry S. Dotterer in The Perkiomen Region, Past and Present, III, #8 (December l, l900), Bedminster:Adams Apple Press, l994, 387). Fred J. Riffe (Reiff to Riffe Family in America, 1995, 3) finds a Conradus Ryffe (c. l333) and numerous others early and late.

To begin with the first appearance of Hans George Reiff in Pennsylvania, his land was the first point of reference for the original deed of Michael Ziegler's (1680-1764) land in 1717, who came to Germantown in 1709 (Alderfer, Several Documents, 28): which border was said, “beginning at a corner of Hans George Reiff’s land” (Strassburger, The Strassburger Family and Allied Families of Pennsylvania. 419), but when the border was reapplied by the Land Office in a resurvey of this same tract of 100 acres in 1734, after Hans George Reiff was deceased, new benchmarks were made and this reference deleted.

Heckler says there was a tradition in the Reiff family that Hans George Reiff came to PA before Penn:

“In addition to these original German settlers among the Swedes, there were a few Germans here in America before the year 1682. A German named Warner settled near Philadelphia in 1658. Hartsfelder took up land in 1676. Plattenbach also was here before 1682. There is a tradition in the Reiff family of the Perkiomen region that John George Reiff, a member of the Reformed Church, came to Pennsylvania before Penn set up his government." The Lutheran Church in Pennsylvania (1638-1800), 65.

The history of the Perkiomen, that valley and surroundings north of Norristown and King of Prussia, PA. (see the Perkiomen Trail Map) involves a community of families that link over centuries. Riffe repeats that Hans George Reiff (1659-1726) may have arrived “in the latter part of 1600” (Riffe, 18). Maybe it was in 1709, or, as Davis suggests, with a large group of Mennonites who came in August of 1717 (Richard Warren Davis. Emigrants, Refugees and Prisoners, II, 347). In any case Hans Reiff's land was a benchmark in Salford for the boundary of his Mennonite neighbor Ziegler in 1717 (Ralph Beaver Strassburger, The Strassburger Family, 415). This proximity was one likely cause of Hans George being asked to witness that agreement in 1725. The minister Michael Ziegler was one of the trustees of the 100 acres earmarked in 1717 for Skippack Mennonites to dedicate school house and burial ground in 1717. Their proximity

The new deed says, “beginning at a post at a corner of Henry Penibaker’s land and extending…to a post thence North East by the land of Jacob Colph" (421). The resurvey gives the original survey date as December, 1717 (Strassburger, 423), so obviously Hans George owned this land prior to that date. Harry Reiff observes that the year of the recording of that purchase as 1724 vs. the 1717 date of the survey “reflects the recording, not the date of purchase. The land was still in Philadelphia Co. and often years went by before the farmers went all that distance to Philadelphia (quite a trip in those days) to record the purchase/ownership.”

A Mennonite “Hans Reiff” also purchased 100 acres in 1718 bordering those of Hans George Reiff. Old world census lists denote the religion of the head of household next to the name. Davis thinks Hans Reiff and Hans George were relatives for their names and proximity of residence (347). “An “M” appears behind each who was a Mennonite” (Davis, 1). Also using this shorthand, biographers denoted Hans George Reiff by religion in order to separate him from his Mennonite neighbor Hans Reiff (c. 1688-1750), even though Hans Reiff is the age of Hans George’s children. By 1717 Hans George’s family was grown. George was 25, Peter 23, Conrad 21, Jacob 19 and Anna Maria 15. According to Heckler he had “purchased the entire southern corner of the township containing two hundred acres” (History of Harleysville, 24). While the religious shorthand implies social distinctions between Reformed and Mennonite, church and sect, Hans George had extensive relations with all. He could have been called Hans George the blacksmith, Hans George of Salford, or Sulford, as in his will, instead of Hans George the Reformed. Andrew Berky "found a record of a purchase of a silver watch in 1717 in Philadelphia by Hans George" (1). Harry Reiff

Hans George Reiff of Pennsylvania

Was he Hans George or John (Johann) George Reiff? A lot of rebaptizing was happening in the land. Some biographers insist he is John, claiming Hans as a diminutive (Riffe, 1), but the deed of 1717 is in the name of Hans George and likewise his signature of the Mennonite agreement was Hans George, so rebaptizing is anglicizing. Harry E. Reiff (HER) thinks he may have been illiterate because of the mere initials, JR of his will, but we know he “wrote a neat hand” (Pennypacker) in the trust agreement; so perhaps he was infirm or incapable of other signing at the end. HER calls it “rather a cockeyed mark.” It is also interesting that Hans’ son Jacob Reiff may have had ready to hand a seal denoting JR, but there is never a contemporary reference to Hans George as John Reiff except the will. This anglicizing becomes more common later. HER says, (20 Nov 2002) “I’ve heard that the original will was in German, but no proof of that either,” except of course for the sudden appearance of “John” at the end of the will. He adds, “the archives in Philadelphia City Hall are not at all always in German-far from it (11 Dec 2001).

This family was known and respected by their Mennonite neighbors even while they were embroiled in difficulties among their own religion of the German Reformed church whose first building was on their land and whose elders sent the Reiff son, Jacob, to Holland on a fund raising tour along with their pastor Weiss. this voyage of a year and a half ended badly for both of them when Weiss abandoned the mission and refused to take the collected funds with him on his return. As soon as he returned to Philadelphia he moved to New York, leaving Jacob Reiff with the duty.

”Copy of the last will and testament of John George Reiff, of Sulford Township, Philadelphia County, Pa., dated 15 December 1726."

Current copies of this will are corrected translation implied in the change of “Sulford” to Salford in the opening with the now Englished name, “John George Reiff of Salford Township.” The Historical Society document using "John", seems corrected from “Hans.” Since the Pennsylvania Historical Society calls him “John George” references conform to this if only for scholarly clarity. He is called John George Reiff in an article in 1922 identifying one witness to the will, Johannes Scholl (The Perkiomen Region, Vol I, 105), but of course that is because his name occurs as such in the corrected translation of the will. Riffe gives his name as “John (Hans) George Reiff” (20) on a lease agreement of 1724 and release of deed May 15, 16. He cites James Heckler’s “History of Lower Salford Township as his source; Reiff Family Sketch; Notes,” but Heckler there refers to Hans George’s son, “George, or John George” (1692-1759) (24). Heckler calls him “Hans George,” but later in his narrative, Henry S. Dotterer calls him “John George Reiff” (30), but then reverts to “Hans George” in referring to land Jacob Reiff purchased in 1727 “adjoining lands of Hans George Reiff” (31) which only proves that Hans George was a slightly more prevalent usage in 1886.

The ancestry of Hans George Reiff (c.1659-1726) in Pennsylvania involves a community of families which Richard Warren Davis traces to the old world origins of the Swiss canton of Zurich, Wädenswil, son of Ulrich Ryeff, (b.1626), and his wife, Cathri Zäshler (347). Riffe believes Hans Reiff's father was Joseph Reiff of Wädenswil which would support that they are cousins. HER says the possibility “cannot be ignored” that Hans George migrated to the Pfalz (Basel) and joined the German Reformed Church there. He identifies an unpublished manuscript in the Pennsylvania Historical Society where Henry Dotterer, in his visit to the Netherlands and the Dutch Reformed Church archive, finds data that Hans George married the educated daughter of a Dutch Reformed church minion. This would explain the education of their children, especially Jacob, called by Heckler (108) one of the four most learned of the community.

Some say that Hans George may have arrived “in the latter part of 1600” (Riffe, 18). Heckler says there was a tradition in the Reiff family that he came before Penn. Maybe it was in 1709, or, as Davis suggests, with a large group of Mennonites who came in August of 1717 (347), but it is certain the land of Hans George Reiff and his wife Anna Maria (1662-1753) was a benchmark in Salford in 1717 to identify the boundary of their Mennonite neighbor Michael Ziegler. Ziegler, minister and trustee of the deed of Skippack Mennonites to dedicate 100 acres for a Mennonite school house and burial ground, also in 1717 (Strassberger, 415) was the likely cause of Hans George being asked to witness that agreement in 1725. ?

Ziegler had come to Germantown in 1709 (Alderfer, Several Documents, 28), but reapplied to the Land Office for a resurvey of this same tract of 100 acres in 1734, after Reiff was deceased, so new benchmarks were made. His land had been the original best point of reference for that first deed “beginning at a corner of Hans George Reiff’s land” (Strassburger, 414). The new deed says, “beginning at a post at a corner of Henry Penibaker’s land and extending…to a post thence North East by the land of Jacob Colph (421). The resurvey gives the original survey date as December, 1717 (Strassburger, 423), so obviously Hans George owned this land prior to that date. As an experienced researcher, Harry Reiff observes that the year of the recording of that purchase in 1724 vs. the 1717 date of the survey, “reflects the recording… not the date of purchase. The land was still in Philadelphia Co. and often years went by before the farmers went all that distance to Philadelphia (quite a trip in those days) to record the purchase/ownership.”

The Mennonite Hans Reiff (1688-1750) purchased 100 acres in 1718 that bordered those of Hans George. Old world census lists denote the religion of the head of household next to the name. “An “M” appears behind each who was a Mennonite” (Davis, 1). Using this shorthand biographers denote Hans George Reiff by religion in order to separate him from his Mennonite neighbor Hans Reiff (c. 1688-1750), even though Hans Reiff is the age of Hans George’s children. By 1717 Hans George’s family was grown. George was 25, Peter 23, Conrad 21, Jacob 19 and Anna Maria 15. According to Heckler he had “purchased the entire southern corner of the township containing two hundred acres” (History of Harleysville, 24). But the religious shorthand between Reformed and Mennonite, church and sect, did not apply for Hans George who had extensive relations with many. He could have been called Hans George the blacksmith, Hans George of Salford, or Sulford, as in his will, instead of Hans George the Reformed.

It’s going to be significant who lives near in these communities because you turn to your neighbors in time of need. In the case of Hans George, it was Ziegler and Hans Reiff, both Mennonites, who bordered his land Davis (347) thinks Hans Reiff and Hans George were relatives of some kind, both for their names and proximity of residence. Of his relations with these Mennonite neighbors it overreaches to say that Hans George Reiff "assisted in the preparation" of the Mennonite trust agreement that he witnessed because "in the time when many of the colonists were unable to read and write, John George Reiff was considered an educated man," or, that "he was more than helpful in assisting the poorer immigrants, particularly those of the Mennonite faith," and "helped organize and build the Salford Mennonite Meetinghouse" (Riffe, 19-20). Such language might apply later to his son Jacob when he was deputy for the probate of wills c. 1743-48, “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)

Samuel Pennypacker argues that his ancestor, Heinrich Pannebecker, was the agent who set up this trust agreement, that the Mennonites must have been "acting under the guidance of some one more or less familiar with the forms of conveyancing" (Bebber’s Township and the Dutch Patroons of Pennsylvania, in The Creation, Founding and early Settlers of Bebber’s Township, by William N. Detweiler, 1992. 6). But Pannebecker’s written English was a Dutch pidgen as bad or worse than schoolmaster Christopher Dock's German-English, of whom Heckler remarks, his “education was in German and [he] did not know what constituted good English (History of Harleysville, 52).

We compare the two. First the German-English of the will of Christopher Dock (1771): "my order is dit, to chose Man, two upright Man can do it, let them bring it in two like part and worth as good she can, and so likewise if any fruit, every a thing shall come in two like part to Receive each of my Children one part" (The Perkiomen Region II, 25). Just as bad, in a letter of 13 February 1742 Pennebecker says : "M. Frend Ed Ward Shippen. My keind Respek too Juer too let Ju under Stan tha I haffe spoken with the totters of Abraham op den Graff an by ther words ar willing too singe Jur deeds as ther broders haffe don…"(Bebber’s Township, 31). There was scant English excellence in Skippack. Heckler points out that Hans George’s neighbor Michael Ziegler “made his mark” MZ, and that “while his wife wrote her name in German Catharine Zieglerin…we will not comment on his fitness as a minister of the gospel when he could not so much as write his name,” (History of Skippack and Vicinity, 13). The modern Pennypacker says, “the witnesses were Hans George Reiff; a member of the German Reformed Church, who wrote a neat signature, and Antonius Heilman, a Lutheran living at the Trappe. Whether this selection of witnesses was the result of chance alone, or had some purpose, it is impossible to determine” (6), but certainly in the career of their son Jacob, the Hans George Reiff family was set apart by their knowledge of English

The trust agreement of 30 March 1725 designed that “the land should be held for the benefit of the poor of the Mennonites, and for the erection of a meeting house for the people of that sect, and, on the other hand to so restrict it, that only members in good standing in this meeting could act as trustees" (Pennypacker, 6). Pennypacker observes that it was "the recognition of a duty to provide for the education of all of the children of a township and the burial of all of the dead, and that for all time, the setting apart of so large a domain as one hundred acres, for the purpose, and the expression of his affection for them, are not at all characteristic of a mere sale of lands…(4-5).

Ruth is less ecstatic about the beneficence of Dutch patronage: "there was a transaction back in Bebber's Town. . .the Mennonites on the Skippack bought. . .a 100 acre plot, at a somewhat reduced rate" (96). Pennypacker differs that the "annual rental of one shilling and four pence" (4) were "not intended in any sense as the consideration for the conveyance or any part of it" (6) but merely as a sign, insisted upon by van Bebber that he was "a Patroon as well as a vendor" (6) in his dealings, "even in a gift to the Trustees of a charity" (7). Just to make it interesting, Riffe says they paid 15 pounds for it (19)! By way of comparison, in 1724 Pennepacker gave a lease on 200 acres to Hans George Reiff for 5 shillings, which Reiff however then purchased for 485 pounds, 13 shillings (Riffe, 20). So in terms of the lease rate the Mennonites got a reduced rate, but in terms of the value of the land an outright gift.

We have knowledge of Hans George’s wife Anna Maria in the eulogy of Muhlenberg at her decease in 1753. In his will his neighbors “Isaac Duboy and Lorrents Schweitzer” are charged to see that the will is adequately performed. “Jno Scholl” and “Garret InDehaven” are witnesses with a “Robert Jones,” and the inventory of his estate is signed by “Lorentz Livnya Mornn (sic)” and “Johannes Lefebe” which identities might tell a little more about Hans George, at least by association. Hans George Reiff maintained friendly relations with Mennonites, Lutherans and a wide range of people. He did not participate in judgments made upon narrowest reading of doctrine. Perhaps that was one of the parting of the ways his son Jacob had with Reformed pastor Boehm, who was doctrinaire. The construction of the Mennonite trust agreement referred to above further demonstrates this cooperation Presumably there is a sanitized version of Pennsylvania religious history and new world politics, but examining the originals, the letters, journals and reports by and about Boehm, Weiss, Muhlenberg, and the hundred, thousand tracts, pamphlets, books and private diaries indicates a diversity of community unlike New England ‘s monolith. Philadelphia and its environs was extraordinarily diverse in all directions of experimentation, a free but often lawless environment. Hans George Reiff was an exception to the argumentative, contentious citizen.

How involved, how early in the country & The Importance of the Mennonite Trust

BEBBEK'S TOWNSHIP AND THE DUTCH PATKOONS OF PENNSYLVANIA.

Mennonite Schoolhouse and Cemetery

"It is plain from the letter of Pastorius of March 7th, 1684, that the Dutch and German immigrants who founded Germantown expected to receive their grant along a navigable stream, to have a little province of their own, free from the sway ot the English, or, as Penn described it, " a new Franckenland," 2 further removed from English influence, he no doubt believed that it would possess advantages over Germantownand prove to be more attractive to the Dutch and German incomers who had been disappointed in that location. 4

Other settlers in 1702 were Johannes Kuster, Claus Jansen [Jacob Reiff did his will}, and Jan Krey…Gerhard In de Hoffen [one of the witnesses of Hans George's will in 1726] and Herman In de Hoifen (De Haven) [Reiff church?]… Cornelius Dewees and William Dewees [an involved Reformed member] 5

“On the 8th of June, 1717, Yan Bebber and his wife, in consideration of " the true love and singular affection he the said Matthias Yan Bebber bears to them and all theirs," conveyed one hundred acres of land to Henry Sellen, Claus Jansen, Henry Kolb, Martin Kolb, Jacob Kolb, Michael Ziegler and Hermannus Kuster, reserving an annual rental of one shilling and four pence to hold to them " the survivors and survivor of them and to the heirs and assigns to the said survivors or survivor for ever" upon the trust that " it shall be lawful for all and every the inhabitants of the above Bebbers Township to build a school house, and fence in a sufficient Burying place upon the herein granted one hundred acres of land there to have their children and those of their respective families taught and instructed, and to bury their dead."

So far as I know these provisions are without precedent in our annals, and have never been followed elsewhere. There are many instances where men have given lands and money for the support of some church, or philanthropic scheme, with which they have been associated or in which they were interested, but the recognition of a duty to provide for the education of all of the children of a township and the burial of all of the dead, and that for all time, the setting apart of so large a domain as one hundred acres, for the purpose, and the expression of his affection for them, are not at all characteristic of a mere sale of lands, but indicate the patroonship or overlordship of the extensive Dutch grants, like that of Van Rensselaer at Albany, accompanied by a sense of obligation to see that the needs of the people are anticipated.

The deed was written by Pastorius and witnessed by Pannebecker. Since the two parties and the other witness, Isaac Van Bebber, were all then living at Bohemia Manor, it is probable that he took the deed there to be executed. The trust so established led to consequences which in one respect at least were more important than could have been foreseen. The School was conducted by Christopher Dock " the pious Schoolmaster on the Skippack," whose memory I some years ago revived, and who has since been written about by Edward Eggleston, Martin G. Brumbaugh and become famous ; and it was here in 1750 that he wrote the earliest American essay upon Pedagogy and in 1764 upon Etiquette.

All of the trustees were members of the Mennonite Church and their selection was due no doubt to the fact that the greater number of the settlers belonged to that sect, and that the affiliations of Van Bebber were with it. Eight years later, March 30th, 1725, they, being then all still living, executed a declaration of trust, brought about doubtless by the determination to build a meeting house, which purpose was that year accomplished. This declaration set forth :

"Which s'd land & premises were so as afores'd convey' d unto us by the direction and appointment of the Inhabitants of Bebberstownship afores'd belonging to the meeting of the people Called Menonists (alias Menisten) & the above recited deed poll was so made or Intended to us in trust to the Intend only that we or such or so many of us as shall be & Continue in unity & religious fellowship with the s'd people & remain members of the s'd meeting of the Menonists (alias Menisten) whereunto we now do belong should stand & be seized of the s'd land & premisses in & by the s'd deed poll granted To the uses & Intend hereinafter mentioned & declared & under the Conditions provisos & Restrictions hereinafter limitted & expressed & to no other use Intend or purpose whatsoever, that is to say For the benifit use & behoof of the poor of the s'd people called Menonists (alias Menisten) in Bebberstownship afores'd forever And for a place to Erect a meeting house for the use & Service of the s'd people, & for a place to bury their dead, as also for all & every the Inhabitants of the s'd Bebberstownship to build a school house & fence in a sufficient burying place upon the s'd one hundred acres of land there to have their Children; those of their respective families taught & Instructed; to bury their dead Provided always that neither we nor any of us nor any other person or persons Succeeding us in this trust who shall be declared by the members of the s'd meeting for the time being to be out of unity with them shall be Capable to Execute this trust while we or they shall so remain But that in all such cases as also when any of us or others Succeeding us in the trust afores'd shall hapen to depart this life then it shall & may be lawfull to & for the members of the s'd meeting as often as occasion shall require to make Choice of others to mannage & execute the s'd trust instead of such as shall so fall away or be deceased. And upon this further trust & Confidence that we & the Survivor of us & the heirs of such survivor should upon the request of the members of the s'd meeting either assign over the s'd trust or Convey & Settle the s'd one hundred acres of land & premises to such person or persons as the members of the s'd meeting shall order or appoint To & For the uses Intends & Services afores'd Now Know Ye that we the s'd Henry Sellen, Claus Jansen, Henry Kolb, Martin Kolb, Jacob Kolb, Michael Ziegler & Hermanus Kuster do hereby acknowledge that we are nominated in the s'd recited deed poll by & on the behalf of the s'd people called Menonisten (alias Menisten) and that we are therein trusted only by & for the members of the s'd meeting and that we do not claim to have any right or Intrest in the s'd Land and premises or any part thereof to our own use & benifit."

By this declaration the trustees endeavored, while maintaining the original trust of providing for the education of the children of all the inhabitants of the township, and for the burying of their dead, to so extend its purposes that the land should be held for the benefit of the poor of the Mennonites, and for the erection of a meeting house for the people of that sect, and, on the other hand to so restrict it, that only members in good standing in this meeting could act as trustees. They also make the statement that their selection was due to a nomination made by the members of the meeting. It is plain they were acting under the guidance of some one more or less familiar with the forms of conveyancing, but unacquainted with the principles of the law.

The deed shows the characteristic peculiarities of the handwriting of Pannebecker. For many years Pastorius used a seal with the device of a Sheep above which were his initials U F. D. P." He had been dead seven years. His seal, however, was used upon this declaration seven times, and likewise upon the deed to Johannes Fried before referred to in 1724, which indicates that it was at that time in the possession of some one living in Skippack. It could be no other than Pannebecker, and this leads to the query as to whether or not he had secured the forms and other paraphernalia of Pastorius after the death of the "Pennsylvania Pilgrim." The witnesses were Hans George Reiff, a member of the German Reformed Church, who wrote a neat signature, and Antonius Heilman, a Lutheran living at the Trappe. Whether this selection of witnesses was the result of chance alone, or had some purpose, it is impossible to determine.

[So it is not remarkable, if it is for the service of the entire area, that anyone were buried there, as Hans George and Maria were. This selfless public function is not so unlike that manuscript included at the end of he Music of the Ephrata Cloister where the writer takes up the first tract in support of animal rights attributed to Ludwig Hocker Brother Obed of the Ephrata Cloister, 95f. He does so also for the rights of women, but this had been a cause of Cornelius Agrippa in Nobilitate & Præœcellentia Fœminei of 1529, The Nobility of Woman.

A census of the country at that time includes:

"By order of the Court of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia
County, upon petition of the residents, the township was
regularly laid out and surveyed in 1725 and given the
name of "Skippack and Perkiomen," 10...The
names attached to the petition are Klas Jansen, Johan
Urastat, Peter Bon, Henry Pannebecker, Hermanns Kuster,
Paulus Frid, Johannes van Fossen, Johannes Friedt, Hans
Tetweiller, Jacob Scheimer, Paul Friedt, Willem Weirman,
Nicholas H st, Henrich Kolb, Martin Kolb, Jacob Kolb,
Jacob Merckley, Arnold van Fossen, Isaac Dubois, Huppert
Kassel, John Pawling, John Jacobs, Richard Jacob, Michael
Ziegler, Christoph Dock, Hans Yolweiller, Valentin Hunsicker,
Richard Gobel, Matthias Teissen, Arnold Van
Vossen, Jacob Op de Graff, George Merckle, Daniel Deesmont,
and Peter Jansen.

The Reiff Church of Skippack and American colonial civilization/revolution/colony

In addition to signing the Mennonite Trust AgreementHans George who fostered the appearance of the Skiippack Reformed church in his home. Six pastors served in that church, counting Boehme, unofficially, the last being John William Straub from 1739-1741. It may not indicate the church building was removed after that if we consider that in 1743, Indenhofen applied for a license to keep a "public house" and also let the house be used as the Skippack Reformed Church for Sunday meeting. Boehme roughly from 1720, first as Reader, then about 1725 as pastor, then George Michael Weiss, 1727-30, Peter Miller, 1730-31, John Bartholomew Rieger, 1731-34, John Henry Goetschy, 1735-39, John William Straub, 1739-41 (Life of Boehm, 60).

If you are not familiar of how disciples, adherents and partisans select facts to their liking, magnifying some, altering others, omitting others, the Reiff Church will be unknown to you. It still functioned in 1736 when Jacob Reiff with Gerhard In den Hoffen (1687-1746), a previous fellow member of that entity who 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. The petition to the Quarter Sessions Court of Philadelphia on September 6, 1736 was denied because "the owners and distances in some cases had not been correctly given" (Heckler, History of Skippack, 7) and because the road would only distantly approach the church, possibly an "inaccuracy of early eighteenth century surveying" that bothered Detweiler (v) in his reconstruction of the map of Bebber's Township.

There was a natural divide between the Philadelphia and Skippack Reformed churches. Philadelphia was led by Weiss and was formed by immigrants who arrived with a colony in 1727, while Skippack was led by Boehme and was comprised of indigenous people who had already lived there for some generations. Weiss was ordained at Heidelberg, was formal and insisted on preeminence as did his shipmates, all alphas themselves who played a large role in later political events. Boehme was merely a Reader, but Skippack was also comprised of public spirited people.

The two branches of these tradiions have a common origin in the father hans George who fostered the appearance of the Skiippack church in his home

Reformed or Reborn Mennonite

Religion was as consuming a passion as language when Hans George and son Jacob lived in such close sympathy with Mennonites. They became one of them in about a generation. Two possible motives for this exist. Investigations of Glenn Landis on wills not previously available indicates that Jacob Reiff married Anna Landes, a Mennonite:

"a recently discovered estate settlement for the estate of Jacob Landes (1750) shows that he in fact had two daughters in addition to the son Jacob II. These daughters signed as Anna Reiff and Margreth Smith (mark)" (in To Whom It May Concern). It was already known that when Jacob's son George married Elizabeth Hendricks he became a Mennonite.

Harry Reiff's reasoning on Jacob as a Mennonite is that "Jacob had become disillusioned of the German Reformed congregations after he was accused of thievery of the proceeds from his trip to Holland and Germany with the minister Weiss and he may have changed religions in disgust" (Letter, 1 March 2003).

German Reformed historians have never overcome their embarrassment of politics in this fraud about thievery, even if their own investigator (Schlatter) exonerated Jacob at the time. The turmoil lasted more than a decade and took its toll of Jacob's faith, since no religious affiliation can thereafter be shown for him. But he had continual association with Mennonites, probated the will of Claus Jansen, first Mennonite minister at Skippack (Heckler, Lower Salford, 15 (insert in Adams Apple ed.). His neighbors, putative cousins Hans and Abraham Reiff, were long standing members of the Salford Mennonites and of course "many of his grandchildren married Mennonites" (Davis, 347). Harry Reiff says that Jacob's mother, Anna Maria, "died after her son Jacob (with whom she lived for the last years of her life) had changed from the German Reformed Church to the Skippack Mennonite meetinghouse, possible because Jacob may have married the daughter of Skippack Mennonite Jacob Landis," and that, "the Mennonite lines seem to me to be quite clear from George III down..." because of the Reiff/Hendricks marriage.

When we reduce these peoples' faith to that current shadow currently known they are charged with all manner of issues of which they are innocent. For their faith was built on goodness for its own sake among those who receive everything which belongs to them from the goodness in goodness. There they know themselves and all the things that they know and love and act with the goodness in goodness performs their works in accordance with such Scripture as "It is the Father who dwells in me doing his own work."

When Jacob Reiff the Elder (15 November 1698 – 16 February 1782) and Anna Landes (1709 - 28 October 1788) married at Skippack in 1733 they had two sons, Jacob Jr. and George III. His oldest son, Jacob Reiff Jr., the first elected member of the Pennsylvania General Assembly from Montgomery County (1786-89), who voted for the Pennsylvania convention to adopt the Constitution of the United States, followed his father's Reformed tendencies and participated in the founding of the Wentz Reformed Church, his younger brother George married a Mennonite.

But while Jacob Jr. was initially Refomed, his children got into the Mennonites in a big way, especially his son John Reiff (5 December 1759 – 6 February 1826) who married a daughter of Bishop Christian Funk and became a minister with that prescient defrocked divine who endorsed the American Revolution. This John Reiff signed the preface with other ministers of the English version of Funk’s Mirror for all Mankind (Norristown, Pa.,1814). In 1814 however Jacob Reiff Jr. donated land for the first Funkite meetinghouse in Skippack (Wenger, 350), the same land that his son John later retitled to the Dunkards after the Funkite demise.
This tells us nothing directly of Jacob the Elder but it is luminous with the effects that occurred when Jacob married the daughter of the Mennonite Landis, Anna, who was buried in the Mennonite burial ground in 1753. However Anna was known as a Reformed widow by Muhlenberg so as enticing as these arguments are they founder there.

Mennonites of that time were eclectic. They asked Hans George to be their witness and they gave their sanctuary for Lutheran pastor Muhlenberg to perform the funeral of a Reformed widow (that is, Anna Reiff) and then buried her in their churchyard. Jacob could have returned to support the Wentz Church, successor to the Reiff Church, as his prodigal brother Conrad did (The Perkiomen Region, I, 39-44), but there is no evidence that he did. He could have worshiped at Muhlenberg's church, who respected him as one who "could discern good as well as evil in others" (Journals, I, 353), but there is no record of it although there is that his sister joined. It would not be difficult to disappear into the Mennonite meetinghouse since they kept fewer records than the "churched." Jacob is not going to make it easy to decide, which we may take as a motive to understand the much longer account of his life and trials when it appears!

Hans George Reiff maintained friendly relations with Mennonites, Lutherans and a wide range of people and did not participate in narrow readings of doctrine, a difficulty his son Jacob had with the doctrinaire Reformed pastor Boehm. The construction of the Mennonite trust agreement above demonstrates this cooperation.

Examining the originals, the letters, journals and reports by and about Boehm, Weiss, Muhlenberg, and the hundred, thousand tracts, pamphlets, books and private diaries indicates a diversity of community unlike New England's monolith. Philadelphia and its environs was extraordinarily diverse in all directions of experimentation, a free but often lawless environment. Hans George Reiff was an exception to the argumentative, contentious citizen, a wise man, who in his will asks that his five children take their parts in the estate under the supervision of "two indifferent men by the rule of their inventory that it may prevent discord" (Rife, 20).

German or English

There was slight English excellence in Skippack. Heckler says Hans George’s neighbor Michael Ziegler “made his mark” MZ, “while his wife wrote her name in German Catharine Zieglerin…we will not comment on his fitness as a minister of the gospel when he could not so much as write his name,” (History of Skippack and Vicinity, 13). Heckler was sometimes an ass.

The modern Samuel W. Pennypacker says of the Mennonite Trust Agreement that “the witnesses were Hans George Reiff; a member of the German Reformed Church, who wrote a neat signature, and Antonius Heilman, a Lutheran living at the Trappe. Whether this selection of witnesses was the result of chance alone, or had some purpose, it is impossible to determine” ("Bebber's Township and the Dutch Patroons of Pennsylvania" in William N. Detweiler, Bebber's Township , 6 (Adams Apple Press, 1992), reprinted from the article by the Hon. Samuel W. Pennypacker in The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. XXXI). Maybe it was chance, but in the careers of their sons Jacob and Conrad, the Hans George Reiff family was set apart by its knowledge of English.

To say however that Hans George Reiff "assisted in the preparation" of the Mennonite trust agreement is more than the facts can bear. That he witnessed because "in the time when many of the colonists were unable to read and write, John George Reiff was considered an educated man," or, that "he was more than helpful in assisting the poorer immigrants, particularly those of the Mennonite faith," and "helped organize and build the Salford Mennonite Meetinghouse" (Riffe, 19-20), such language would better describe his son Jacob who was deputy for the probate of wills c. 1743-48. “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).

However if both Jacob's parents knew English it is no wonder the career of their son was so set apart, for he spoke and wrote English and German fluently and undoubtedly Dutch, since he traveled those years in Holland. That his education can be traced to his parents suggests that he was groomed for such responsibilities as probating the will of Claus Jansen, the first Mennonite minister at Skippack, a settler in Skippack as early as 1703, whose will "dated June 1, 1739...was proven before Jacob Reiff, of Lower Salford, deputy register, October 30, 1745" (Heckler, 15). Whether he translated the Mennonite trust agreement or his father, somebody had to, for it was not Pennebacker, as we shall see.

The Mennonite Trust Agreement

Samuel Pennypacker argues that his ancestor, Heinrich Pannebecker, was the agent who set up that trust agreement and that the Mennonites must have been "acting under the guidance of some one more or less familiar with the forms of conveyancing" (Bebber’s Township and the Dutch Patroons of Pennsylvania, in The Creation, Founding and early Settlers of Bebber’s Township. William N. Detweiler, 1992. 6). But Pannebecker’s written English was only a smiddgin worse than schoolmaster Christopher Dock's poor German-English, of whom Heckler remarks, his “education was in German and [he] did not know what constituted good English (History of Harleysville, Lower Salford, 52).

To compare the two, the German-English of Christopher Dock's will says: "my order is dit, to chose Man, two upright Man can do it, let them bring it in two like part and worth as good she can, and so likewise if any fruit, every a thing shall come in two like part to Receive each of my Children one part" (The Perkiomen Region II, 25). Pennebecker is worse in a letter of 13 February 1742: "M. Frend Ed Ward Shippen. My keind Respek too Juer too let Ju under Stan tha I haffe spoken with the totters of Abraham op den Graff an by ther words ar willing too singe Jur deeds as ther broders haffe don…"(Bebber’s Township, 31). Pennebecker's letter of 13 February 1742

The trust agreement of 30 March 1725 designated that “the land should be held for the benefit of the poor of the Mennonites, and for the erection of a meeting house for the people of that sect, and, on the other hand to so restrict it, that only members in good standing in this meeting could act as trustees" (Pennypacker, 6).

Pennypacker observes that it was the recognition of a duty to provide for the education of all of the children of a township and the burial of all of the dead, and for all time. "Setting apart of so large a domain as one hundred acres, for the purpose and the expression of his affection for them are not at all characteristic of a mere sale of lands…(4-5).

Ruth is less ecstatic about the generosity of Dutch patronage: "there was a transaction back in Bebber's Town. . .the Mennonites on the Skippack bought. . .a 100 acre plot, at a somewhat reduced rate" (96). Pennypacker differs that the "annual rental of one shilling and four pence" (4) were "not intended in any sense as the consideration for the conveyance or any part of it" (6) but merely as a sign, insisted upon by van Bebber, that he was "a Patroon as well as a vendor" (6) in his dealings, "even in a gift to the Trustees of a charity" (7). Just to make it interesting, Riffe says they paid 15 pounds for it (19)! By way of comparison, in 1724 Pennepacker gave a lease on 200 acres to Hans George Reiff for 5 shillings, which Reiff however then purchased for 485 pounds, 13 shillings (Riffe, 20). So in terms of the lease the Mennonites got a reduced rate, but in terms of the value of the land an outright gift.

Fred J. Riffe. Reiff to Riffe. 1995, 1,

Harry E. Reiff (HER) thinks he may have been illiterate

“wrote a neat hand” (Pennypacker)

“rather a cockeyed mark.”

HER says, (20 Nov 2002) “I’ve heard that the original will was in German, (11 Dec 2001).

“I John George Reiff of Salford Township.” The Historical Society

“Johannes Scholl” (The Perkiomen Region, Vol I, 105),

Riffe gives his name

Heckler there refers to Hans George’s son,

Henry S. Dotterer calls him “John George Reiff” (30)

Richard Warren Davis

Harry E. Reiff says the possibility “cannot be ignored”

an unpublished manuscript in the Pennsylvania Historical Society

Heckler (108) one of the four most learned of the community.

arrived “in the latter part of 1600” (Riffe, 18).

Davis, a large group of Mennonites who came in August of 1717 (347)

a benchmark in Salford in 1717 (Strassberger, 415),

Ziegler had come to Germantown in 1709 (Alderfer, Several Documents, 28)

“beginning at a corner of Hans George Reiff’s land” (Strassburger, 414).

The resurvey gives the original survey date as December, 1717 (Strassburger, 423),

Harry E. Reiff observes that the year of the recording

An “M” appears behind each who was a Mennonite” (Davis, 1).

“purchased the entire southern corner of the township containing two hundred acres” (History of Harleysville, 24).

. Davis (347) thinks Hans Reiff and Hans George were relatives

This online guide is based on the third edition of the Guide to the Manuscript Collections of The Historical Society of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, 1991). MANX: The Manuscripts and Archives iNformation eXchange has been updated to incorporate the 1993 Supplement to the Guide (previously available only at HSP), to include newly acquired collections, and to correct inaccuracies in previous editions of the manuscripts guides. Like the published guide, MANX is arranged by collection number, and each entry includes a brief synopsis of the content, an indication of the dates of material included, and the size of the collection.

Please note that MANX is a dead catalog and is not updated regularly; HSP's online catalog http://opac.hsp.org contains up-to-date collection information and links to finding aids.

Richard Warren Davis. Emigrants, Refugees and Prisoners. Volume II. Provo, Utah. 1997

“an unpublished manuscript” Harry E. Reiff, HER.(Letter, 4/7/03). In a series of letters exchanged from 2001 to 2005 HER’s observations are especially valuable concerning Hans George Reiff.

“church minion” (Harry Reiff, 20 November 2002).

“1717 Ziegler deed” in Ralph Beaver Strassburger. The Strassburger Family and Allied Families of Pennsylvania. Gwynedd Valley, Pa. 1922, 419.

“the recording of the purchase” HER

“four most learned” James Y. Heckler. The History of Harleysville and Lower Salford Township, 1886. Reprinted by Adams Apple Press, 1993. 108.

“reasonably well educated” (History of Harleysville, 108) which compared to our time means exceptionally well: Rev. George Weiss and Rev. Balthasar Hoffman in the Schwenkfelder denomination; Dielman Kolb and Henry Funk in the Mennonite and Jacob Reiff, the elder, in the Reformed. The presumption is that his mother contributed greatly to this education.

1504

Dotterer, Henry Sassaman, 1841-1903. Papers, ca. 1900.

(ca. 20 items.)

Notes and a few manuscripts of papers written by Henry S. Dotterer on Pennsylvania Germans, the Reformed Church, and Montgomery County.

Gift of Mrs. Henry S. Dotterer, 1947.

Mennonites tended to be together on ship and not

The Reiff family spoke English probably from the outset. This is at least evident from the adventures of the youngest son Jacob who in 1723 was active as a translator and intermediary between the English and the German. Whoever englished the Mennonite trust it is obvious Pennypacker did not, his English was a dialect. Correct written English was in short supply in Lower Salford then. Compare the German-English of the will of Christopher Dock: "my order is dit, to chose Man, two upright Man can do it, let them bring it in two like part and worth as good she can, and so likewise if any fruit, every a thing shall come in two like part to Receive each of my Children one part" (The Perkiomen Region II, 25). Referring to Dock's literacy in English, Heckler says his "education was in German" he "did not know what constituted good English" (Lower Salford, 52).

Samuel Pennypacker argues that it was Heinrich Pannebecker who set up the trust agreement, March 30, 1725, using the forms and seal of Pastorius (6). He believes that the Mennonites must have been "acting under the guidance of some one more or less familiar with the forms of conveyancing" (6). Although it is granted Pannebecker wrote a conveyancer's hand and drew deeds" (1) and that he spoke three languages, Dutch, German and English (1), that does not mean he could write them. His written English was as bad as Dock's, a Dutch-English dialect, evident in a letter of 1742: "M. Frend Ed Ward Shippen. My keind Respek too Juer too let Ju under Stan tha I haffe spoken with the totters of Abraham op den Graff an by ther words are willing too singe Jur dees as ther broders haffe don…"(31).

It has been suggested that Hans George Reiff "assisted in the preparation" of the trust agreement that he also witnessed (Riffe, 20). "In the time when many of the colonists were unable to read and write, John George Reiff was considered an educated man" that is, we infer he was an educated man because he witnessed the agreement. Further, "he was more than helpful in assisting the poorer immigrants, particularly those of the Mennonite faith," and that he "helped organize and build the Salford Mennonite Meetinghouse" (19). Can we accept this proprietary claim that Hans George Reiff could read and write (English) merely from the assertion of Pennypacker (6) that he "wrote a neat signature?"

Note
One thing is sure, there are no Reiff names or their associated families in the

Roster of the Freemason's Lodge warranted by Benjamin Franklin,  compiled by Sasche

Two Eighteenth Century Sources for The Funeral of Anna Reiff, January 8, 1753

Astonishing details about a funeral in Skippack, 1753 show the prominence of

the wake of Anna Reiff's funeral in Mittelberger's Journey to Pennsylvania,

with the epicede of that funeral from Henry Melchior Muhlenberg's Journals.

Further details of Anna Reiff are considered at Anna Reiff's "Neat Hand."

I. The Wake

"The most prestigious social event of 1753 occurred in Providence and Salford at the January funeral of Anna Reiff, Conrad Reiff's mother. Rev. Muhlenberg, Mittelberger's employer, who later writes of it, officiated. Mittelberger would surely have played the organ had the Mennonite church where it was held possessed one, but in his fancy as a connoisseur of "the American funeral" (44) he seems to describe the event. "I should like to describe the funeral customs in greater detail," he says. "It is possible to count up to four hundred or five hundred persons on horseback" (43). Muhlenberg later wrote that there was a "large and distinguished assembly" at Anna Reiff's funeral (Journals, I, 353), her other son Jacob being a leading citizen of Salford. Some would ride "up to ten hours" says Mittelberger (43), but as a local he would have been there already, for "while these people are assembling, those present are handed pieces of good cake on a large tin platter. Aside from that everyone gets a goblet of well-warmed West Indian rum" (44). Such niceties sound indeed like a winter occasion and probably this particular funeral, though he does not [specifically] say. He certainly knew all the parties in attendance, especially his subject, Conrad Reiff, whose misbehavior he later reports, but which however had not yet occurred, for it would have been summer when he was [putatively] attacked by [a flight of golden] eagles in his fields.

And since it would be three full years before the Journey was issued in Frankfurt to catalog these events (1756) we can without hindrance imagine the organ lovers, for Conrad Reiff owned one,and Mittelberger, chatting at the funeral about how it was "still pretty difficult to hear good music" except at private English "spinet or harpsichord concerts"(Journey, 87). Mittelberger would have said, "I brought the first organ into the country" (87) and boasted about the "fine and good instruments" people came "up to thirty hours' journey [to him] to hear. He would have confided that he could even make better organ pipes out of cedar trees, "a purer tone than those made of tin" (56), and that all the organs "came into the country during the four years of my stay" (88)...Mingling in that crowd after the funeral at the reception, Mittelberger might have gotten stuck beside the Planter again, for "after this the guests are also offered warmed sweet cider." Musical tales exhausted he could tell of the "clumsy hangman" (73), the young wife and the wold wife (71-2), the turtles at the market (50), the fireflies (61) or a dozen other tales, but though the funeral was in Salford they wouldn't talk of Oley, home of those "Newborn" who so aroused this air: "such outrageous coarseness and rudeness result from the excessive freedom in that country' (48).

(AE Reiff, "Journey to Pennsylvania." Berks County Historical Review, Summer 2009, 133)

II. The Funeral and the Life

"In the same month of January I was called upon to bury a ninety-year-old pious widow who fell asleep in the Lord. She lived eight miles from New Providence and was buried in the so-called Mennonite cemetery. She lived in this land for a long time. She had several married sons who are well thought of, and some of these profess the Reformed religion [George, Jacob] while others believe in nothing but the transitory riches of this earth. [Conrad, Peter] She also had a daughter who is attached to the Evangelical (Lutheran) Church. The last years of her life the widow lived with her best and most reasonable son who cared for her as was right and proper. During my first years here [1742 and following] she was living with her daughter [in Germantown] and she heard the Word of God regularly, proved herself to be a true widow, lived in solitude, put her hope in the living God, and was instant in prayer day and night. She lived thus notwithstanding the fact that she was obliged to listen to many a blasphemous utterance and witness many an offense [HD on the part of her son-in-law, [Conrad Gehr] who was Reformed by birth, but in this country not only forsook the Word of God and the other meas of grace, but also despised and ridiculed them. [He was a Newborn, as was his uncle, Conrad Reiff of Oley] This might be illustrated by citing just two examples.

The said man maintained a public house and it occurred to him that he might institute a so-called assembly of worship in his house on Sundays. For this purpose he associated himself with a half-educated but totally perverted Christian who was to deliver a sermon or address on physic or natural science at every meeting. The auditors were obligated to pay three pence apiece each time, and this money was to be consumed in drink after the speech. The lasted for a while until the wind intervened and dispersed the chaff.

Moreover, a trustworthy man named Georg Stoltz came to me and related the following incident. One evening he and a Swiss gentleman were obliged to stop at the blasphemer's house and put up for the night. He went out of way to annoy his two guests with sinful talk. Among other things he said that the context of nature is God, that the world came into existence by an accident in eternity, that the universe maintained itself, etc. What the parsons say about God, about a revealed religion, about a Saviour, and about heaven and hell, they have to say to make a living and in order to lead the masses by the nose. Such were the trite fables with which he regaled his guests. They tried to refute him on the basis of God's Word and experience, but he spurned everything. After the two men had gone to bed with heavy hearts and after they had spent about an hour discussing the sad conditions in this land and the ingratitude of men who forget God, the next door neighbor's house was suddenly set on fire and the blasphemer's house was brilliantly illuminated by the flames. The two men sprang out of bed. They observed that the blasphemer in an adjoining room was suddenly roused from his sleep and that he believed that it was his own house that was burning, for he cried out, "O my God, O almighty God, O dear God, help me!" The Swiss gentleman said to the blasphemer, "You big fool! Last evening you denied and blasphemed God, and now you expect Him to help you because you are in trouble," etc. The men were comforted and cheered recalling what is written in Psalm 14 and Jeremiah 17, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." Whence cometh this? "They are corrupt , they have done abominable works," etc. The heart of natural man is deceitful about all things and desperately wicked: who can know it? Some of the poor, sinful worms start out in this free land with hot heads and boldness; then they develop quickly in their corruption; and finally they fall into the pit of their own making just so much the more quickly. That is what happened to this poor blasphemer. He became entangles in a money-making scheme, was caught and was thrown into prison. There, unbidden, he took up the Bible again.

For the sake of her daughter the distressed old widow stayed at the former's home. The paid no attention to the world of God]] and to prayer until she was able to move to her son's. There she spent her remaining days in relative quiet, [relative because Jacob's life was very active!] preparing herself for a blessed end. At her son's request I visited her in this last home of hers and ministered to her with the Word of God and the Holy Communion. At her funeral her son, who can discern good as well as evil in others, testified with tears that she had been a pious widow, a domestic preacher, an intercessor, and a model of godliness. In this testimony other impartial friends concurred, adding only that she had been too little esteemed and too often distressed in this wicked world. [[HD: as it is expressed in the evangelical hymn,

Blessed are the tears of those

Who, in godly bale,

Others' sins bewail,

Owning, too, their own grave woes]]

In consideration of the circumstances, I selected Ecclesiastes 9: 13-16 as my text, "This wisdom have I seen also under the sun, and it seemed great unto me: there was a little city, and few men within it," etc. The elders of the Mennonite meeting permitted and urged us in neighborly love to deliver the funeral address in their meeting-house, which I did in the presence of a large and distinguished assembly. The wailing of the surviving relatives was so loud that I was almost compelled to interrupt my address. The God of blessing let an enduring blessing rest upon His Word!"

Note. Muhlenberg's Journal comes in different states indicated here by HD, a variant filled in by other records, as explained in the Introduction. In offering this long quotation I mean to stimulate readers to obtain their own copies of the three volumes of the Journals, for nowhere else is there a more cogent, factual and engaging contemporary account. It makes for the best reading.

Acknowledgments: It is axiomatic that to speak of fathers we begin with mothers who provide the last hard copies of ourselves before the digital.

The question, like with all those old albums of photographs, old and new is, what to do with them after we have put them on drop box. Do we throw away the letters as superfluous as they sometimes did? What about the civil war photographs? Who will store them when we are gone, the linens, the pots, the books? To answer, we here attempt to be faithful to the hard copy, keep it, guard it, preserve the black and white fades in air tights, label each, tell their stories.

The single most discovery in this immediate research was in 2012 when researching at the Mennonite Heritage Center with the intent of photographing the large Bible printed at Ephrata. This community established in 1732 by Johann Conrad Beissel in Lancaster County translated and printed the largest book printed in colonial America, the 1500 page Martyrs Mirror of the Mennonites, which concerns Ch. I below. Along the way I asked to see the Skippack alms book, the oldest of its sort, begun about 1738. Beginning at the end and paging forward (it wasn't the original, but a facsimile made for such inquiries), on the fist page. I read that in 1739 "Anna Reiffen" gave 10 pounds for the building of a new Mennonite Meeting house (deduced later).

How that signature came about in that book involves the cross and parallel roads by wagon and horseback over that intense section of the south east corner of PA, broadly called Philadelphia. First it involves the Mennonites. Anna herself was called Reformed, German reformed and a church of such believers met in her house and her son's house, Jacob, after here husband had passed in 1727. Called the Reiff church is involved that son Jacob in wide ranging affairs. So even if in the end Anna was buried by a Lutheran pastor in a Mennonite burial ground in 1753. So it also involves Reformed. But her daughter and another son, Conrad, were involved by their marriages in the New Born. So it involves the New Born, In anothere generation the mennonite marriages of these children and grandchildren soon consume all these families for the next foreseeable generations as Mennonite. Taking this family as an epicenter of thers forces, swirling around them are still more sects, religions, cults, social movements, printing presses, intellectual ferment together enabled by the peculiar of Penn's Colony and its Quaker permissiveness of speech and thought, Mennonite, Reformed, Baptist, Schenwkfelder, Moravian. The list goes on. Philadelphia produced a list of 20 or thirty different religions and cults from the tame to the bizarre. So antiquaries look at religion to trace the comings and goings of the ancestors. Sometimes they leave heir belongings there for later generations to find. Names carved into old beams for example, or in Alms books We also want to know of their education and their means of livelihood, their children and grandchildren. It is truly a onus if somehow information survives in somebody’s letter a or diary. His is supercharged if there is a court brief or govt appt or sentence and if they have been embroiled in controversy we can take it to the bank. All these surround the tale of Anna Reiffen, the long aged spouse of Hans George Reiff who came to PA we know not when, but we do where, because there is a deed of 1717 where the boundary of another settler, who became the Mennonite pastor, Michael Ziegler, is drawn by reference to that of this Reiff. Reiffen by the way is just the way of saying that Anna Reiffen is married, meaning the wife of Hans George. Clearly they occupied that place before 1717, but we don’t need to know when to appreciate what we do know. Hans George was a blacksmith with a property of acres called the Pennypacker tract 20 miles from Germantown where most of these Palatinates entered the country. When it was getting too crowded so they moved to the country. The Reiffs have 4 sons and daughter in their quiver who will enter our deliveries like Fedex or Amazon packages left at our door. Some of these as we will see, or all of them if you will, managed to leave a trail.

Anna lived so long her life itself is a record of 90 years gathered around her and because by then her grown family was well known, and her four sons and daughter were somtimes dramatically prominent in community affairs. Her youngest son Jacob, called the Elder, an informal title, held gathering to celebrate her life that winter. It was the largest celebration anybody could remember and drew to itself the countryside for free food, drink and talk. Two contemporary references are made, if one is anonymous. The journal notes by the presiding pastor Henry Muhlenberg made after his funeral oration give much detail of her life. He was a Lutheran himself, but the service was held in the Mennonite church, where shewas anyway to be buried. A second reference occured 3 years later in a memoir by Muhlenberger's organist, Henrich Gottlieb, published after he returned to Germany.

Let us now render these accounts with some discussion that will involve Anna, her children and the society and religion of which she was a part. To proceed chronologically in this, but going forward and then back, scuttling first to account Anna;s funeral in two sources. If you find this tedious the complications of their lives are so much more involved and known than our own. That’s a joke of course, but we don’t have to hang our laundry from the rooftops. We do every thing we can to cover our peccadilloes up. So in an order of going you can dispute with me the peccadilloes of Anna’s daughter, also named Anna, who married her husband Conrad Gehr and was embroiled in the last stages of one of the most virulent beliefs of the time, the New Born, or Neubergornan in which Gehr was involved, which doubly affected Anna because she lived with this daughter after being widowed in 1727, but also because her own son, Conrad, gone off to Oley to join that same .affair. I don’t want to go too deep into it here, for it is set out in Ch. 2 below, but since it involves two of Anna’s family it is also illustrative of the lawless climate of the whole milieu. Historians love their milieus.

Religion was a large factor among those palatinate folk who ordered their lives by beliefs hardly know of today, These will enter in to our further discussion as we climb the limbs of this tree. Among those who speculate about origins of families, they first want to know when they came to PA, then maybe as important what they were,

Pastor Muhlenburg refers to two Conrads in his notes to the effect: Conrad Reiff and Conrad Gehr, mentioned in his funeral obsequies, then the funeral itself, as anonymously reported in Mittelberger, then after we lay Anna to rest, back to her husband Hans George, and his standing in the community, and then his son the Jacob the Elder, his religion, which everybody seems to want to draw him in witness, polemics, court cases, controversies with his antagonist Boehm and the colony of 1727, trips to Europe, appointments, reputed as notable more than his brother Conrad.

II. Reiff Brothers of Schuippach

"The references to Harmony Square and Amityville at the top of the sketch are now Creamery and Lucon. The name changes were required when post offices were being established so there would not be more than one town with the same name in each state. Unfortunately, Amityville/Lucon was never granted their own post office." Skippack historical Society, FB, 23 Aug '21.

Schuippach is the old way of saying Skippack, a variety of the German Schiebach. There were four sons and one daughter of Hans George (c.1659-1726) and Anna Reiff (1662-1753) of Skippack: George (1692 - 1759), Peter (c. 1694 -1783) , Conrad (c. 1696 - 1777), Jacob, called the Elder, (1698 - 1782), and Anna (Maria) (1704 - ). From the birth dates the marriage was late, Maria's mother being 42 at her birth.

Conrad and Jacob are notable because they ran considerably afoul of contemporary piety. Conrad went away but came back spiritually. Jacob stayed home spiritually but got in even more trouble than Conrad did by going away. The Complaint of 1732 against Jacob Reiff is now aired. His Answer of 1733 follows. Their troubles are likable for their resistance to politics and piety, and important because their biographies document much contemporary Pennsylvania religion and life. The extremes of battling shepherds, religion founders and feuding families was pretty much concluded between the death of their father in 1726 and the death of their mother in 1753, offenses enough for lifetimes because they were constantly being charged with disorders, Conrad by his association with the Newborn, being named in Mittelberger's Journey to Pennsylvania, and Jacob by the Reformed pastor Boehm and his associates. Early Pennsylvania religions were borderline sociopathic anomalies as much as they were devotionals.

George Reiff (1692-1759), the Innocent we are tempted to call him in contrast with his brothers, was an elder and one of the early founders of the Reformed Congregation of Skippack, the first Reformed church in Pennsylvania that likely first met in Hans George's home, evidence of George's concern for a more unworldly way of way of life. With other elders he signed the authorization for his brother Jacob to go Holland with Pastor Weiss to collect the ill-fated funds donated to the Reformed congregations (Life and Letters of the Rev. John Philip Boehm, 209) that form the basis for the above Complaint. George is sometimes confused with his father of the same name. Referring to Dotterer's report of the tradition that Hans George Reiff, arrived in Pennsylvania 'before Penn set up his government," Boehm’s editor, Hinke, mistakes the father who died in 1726, for the son, "in 1730 Hans Georg Reiff was a member of the Reformed Church at Skippack" (21). George had no progeny and was a functioning member of the community. He signed the two petitions of 1728 and 1731 mentioned below. In 1757, two years before his death, he was taxed for owning land in Oley about eleven miles south of Reading, near Peter and Conrad. George would seem to have been allied with Jacob in Muhlenberg's mind as one of the "several married sons who are well thought of, and some profess the Reformed religion" (Journals I, 352).

Peter Reiff (c.1694-c.1782) was a blacksmith like his father (who however left his smith's tools to Jacob), but did not leave a will. He lived in Skippack from youth to sometime after 1745 when, having accumulated 400 acres or so in Oley near his brother Conrad, he moved there. This seemed to suggest he might have sympathy for the New Born religion, but in 1738, like his mother Anna, he is recorded as donating ten shillings to the Mennonites of Salford. ( Skippack Alms Book, 2). He has managed to confound a generation of genealogists by founding a strain of Riffes in West Virginia. The antecedents of Daniel Boone also lived in Oley (Riffe, 29) and that association according to Riffe was the primary cause of Peter's childrens' southward descent.

Conrad Reiff figures prominently in Gottlieb Mittelberger's disgruntled history of his Journey to Pennsylvania (1756) where he had gone in 1750 to become the organist in Henry Muhlenberg's Luthern church. Muhlenberg lived in New Providence or Trappe, 8 miles from Skippack where the four Reiff brothers were. Pastor Muhlenberg traveled extensively in that region and beyond in his service and frequently wrote of the people he met, their problems, births, baptisms and deaths with names and details. His Journal was kept mainly as a record for himself, but he writes with veracity. Muhlenberg remarks in his Journal after his address at the Reiff matriarch's death, (January 8, 1753, I, 353) that he spoke to a "large and distinguished assembly." His reflections are an excellent jumping off point into the labyrinth of civil and religious fratricides of that day.

"All three brothers, Conrad, Peter and George, appear on the tax rolls of Oley in 1757, the first year of the organization of that township (Rockland Township). Peter may have lived there some years prior, as perhaps had George, but Conrad certainly did. Before moving to Oley Peter was much involved in the area of his father's settlement in Skippack. His first son, Peter Jr. was born there (c. 1728). Peter Sr., with George, Conrad and 74 other inhabitants along Skippack Creek, calling themselves "Back Inhabitors," petitioned then Governor Gordon in April 29, 1728 for protection against the Indians (Riffe, 26). As with George and Conrad, Peter petitioned the Assembly in 1731 to be "permitted to enjoy the rights and privileges of English subjects" (Riffe, 26). Jacob did not sign any of these petitions since he was out of the country in those years. Three of Peter’s children were born in Rockland Township after his relocation, Jacob (1755), Henry (1756) and Daniel (1759) He started a school (c. 1750) and employed a teacher and was known to witness wills.

Neither did Daughter Anna Maria did not escape controversy. She married Conrad Gehr.

Sources for the Reiff brothers of Schuippach.

1. Jacob's lengthy defense in the Answer (September 1733) to a court complaint against him the previous year. This is his only extant writing, although he is quoted frequently in the letters of Boehm. This occurs in Papers in the Reiff Case, 1730-1749. Edited by Rev. J. H. Dubbs

See the Diary of Rev. Michael Schlatter, 108 f

2) The Wills of Hans George, Conrad and George are extant, with numerous deeds, records of transactions and agreements, formal petitions, newspaper notices and accounts, church records, and tax lists.

3) An important primary source for the funeral of Anna Reiff in 1753 and of events in general in Perkiomen (1742-87) is the Journals of Henry Melichor Muhlenberg.

4) Before 1742 the Letters (1728-1748) of the German Reformed pastor, John Phillip Boehm, reveal a wealth of particulars concerning Jacob Reiff, notably his calling the Philadelphia elders “church robbers.”

Anna Reiff, widow of her husband, Hans George, who died in 1726, was one of three women at whose death Muhlenberg presided in the month of January 1753. The journal gives his private thoughts on the course and significance of her life, things he would not have said out loud. These are not the official remarks, except for the biblical text. His thoughts sum up the Reiff brothers' reputations:

"In the same month of January I was called upon to bury a ninety-year-old pious widow who fell asleep in the Lord. She lived eight miles from New Providence and was buried in the so-called Mennonite cemetery. She lived in this land for a long time.” Muhlenberg calls Jacob Reiff, his father's executor of years before, "her best and most reasonable son who cared for her as was right and proper." "At her son's request I visited her in this last home of hers and ministered to her with the Word of God and the Holy Communion."

Continuing the meditation Muhlenberg says, "at her funeral her son, who can discern good as well as evil in others, testified with tears that she had been a pious widow, a domestic preacher, an intercessor, and a model of godliness (I, 353)." If Muhlenberg says Jacob Reiff can discern "good as well as evil" long after the many vicious allegations had passed, we take his judgment after the fact as evidence of exoneration of the many charges against his character.

To begin then with teh four Reiff sons and daughters we start with the youngest, favored like Joseph among his rothers, deed his father's blacksmith tools in his will of 1727. To be fair in that will there is a statement that all are loved and shared equally and to ensure that an independent executor is appointed, but as we seen in Muhlenberg's Journal he divided the sons into good and less so charactes, which to put names, that would mean Jacob an his Grother George, the good and Conrad, he newborn, and Peter, the wanderer the less so. That Conrad is so fulminated by Gottleib Mittelberger by name in Journey Pennsylvania makes this obvious.

II. Jacob Reiff called the Elder

He was not elder to anyone in his imediate family, he was the younger, nor was he named after anybody immediate. the only Jacob before him was.... Since then there has been a plethora of Jacobs. This one though was a forthright, resposnible and very active single man until his 30s, vested with authority by teh colonial governemt because he spoke English, as did all in his family, among a predominantly German speaking community. He was held in high esteem intellectually too, and that makes it all the more interesting that he would be so vexed by the German Reformed Religion in that imbroglio of the tithes collection from Europe. He was appointed, begged, pleadaed with to accompany the pastor .... overseas when he had just returned from a trip there,"to fetch his relations" recently. The ignomy of fallout, after....abandoned the task and would not take the funds back to Phila himself, was to trouble him not just for the decade, but it has down through the ages by Refromed historians who evidently needed a scapegoat to hide the machinations of riviling churches. We continually see these churches as battling shepherds like the Colin Clout. There was a lot of this or that, as there is now. By conemporary witness, that Muhlenberg, the one tryly sane, rational, educated and dedicated voice, as hsi journals continually testify, would so respect him for the care of his mother, public offices held, and demeanor, is the only unimpeachable source.

In a review of the literature, the force of the seed. the force of the loins of Jacob Reiff (1698-1782) from his father and mother, and in his brothers and sister that has been so determinate in subsequent generations must be remembered to be part of a community of these like souls before and after they lived in Montgomery County. Jacob personally was tempered by being the youngest son among 4 brothers, with only one sister younger than he, growing up in the pristine forests of Montgomery Country and roaming with abandon those pioneer hills and valleys, further tempered by the kindred spirits of his neighbors, all people of high principle and force, among whom he worked and studied, for by 1717, the first record of his fathers’ boundaries, he was already at 19 a full seasoned and well educated man, completely outside the universities. James Heckler, History of Lower Salford Township (26-35) says “he was the most prominent man in the early history of Salford’ (26) so much so that we have the urge to take him down a peg or two, which is unnecessary, since conflict sought him out, but still he persevered. Knowing English, German, Dutch fluently, he was already delegated among these people in an ex officio capacity, which would later become official, so that he is called one of the four most educated—[today he has his own website] which no doubt traces to his mother and father, his mother being thought to be the daughter of a Dutch Reformed official given all advantage in her education, and his father, a blacksmith, was a man of poised and equable spirit, early and late a man of distinction, so no wonder this Jacob was given his father’s blacksmith tools, no wonder he was an executor and intermediary among these high spirited people and, thanks be to our Creator, no wonder he was also a polemicist of high order and fought for what he deemed right, with all that will bring in any and every such man, whose spirit unquenched and his faith much tested, was a patriarch to later generations.

Builders, Elders, Immigrants and Ben Franklin

Jacob Reiff was blamed for not being an elder. He was an official when he did what they wanted but unofficial when not. With the smooth skin wrinkled and the smooth ideas that have gaps like the rapid transit rails filled in he would make a good elder, or a president grown up. But truth is not rapid transit. The elder, speaking of the office, has to amend his opinion when the younger has gravitas. The elder shall serve the younger. The rails come apart and gaps are discovered when the elder's cracked skin fails.

Not ready for a dialogue of opposites, old and young, one party is defensive, another is guilty, both are angry. Their speech is self justification, blaming or lording it over each other, the youthful Jacob Reiff against the entire body of Philadelphia Reformed Elders. Boehm later says they weren't elders at all. But when they acted as such they became such.

Black/white,immigrant/native conversation has similar contexts. The chief flaw in generalizing particular to universal is that one immigrant is fine and Ben Franklin has no problem, but 50,000 Germans make him fear his way of life will fall. Franklin's rhetoric against the Germans was all argument against the man. They were illiterate, dumpy, crude, boorish, "typical Germans." The "typical" quote reveals a world of imposture, as Obama said, his grandmother was a "typical white person." Typical German. These types are only rhetorical, that is, if society refers to one as "typical" they are free to say so back, like chimps throwing nuts at each other. By extension, one Latin Ameican illegal is fine. Five hundred men at the corner jumping in front of cars, soliciting jobs, makes for fear. The mythical white grandmother personified in Obama's memory, afraid of young black men in twos and threes on the street, shows the divide of the problem because nobody will admit that fear is respect. A cop at a traffic stop or going into a store sweeps the scene with his eyes, identifying the elements. "Typical cop." Fear keeps him safe. There is no inherent unity among people except one created by courtesy and mutual respect, even if grown up together within a community and known since childhood. Otherwise you are an outsider and even more suspect. Every day eyes sweep the scene, discriminate street people from immigrant workers to guys with beer cans in paper bags going or coming to work at motels from meth users and mentally challenged squatters along the canals. Feathering your nest with sociology does not prove you are civilized or righteous.

An elder is a judge not easily swayed with honey since he is in pain most of the time and not thinking of an all night drive to Fresno being fun. Elders don't walk at midnight to the corner bar for a beer. Jacob Reiff had the indignity to be called an elder at 27, the age of his first trip back to Europe about 1727, followed immediately by a second. He was an elder since they called him that, but he was not an elder ordained. His outrage at being charged under false pretenses by the Philadelphia Reformed Elders is a manly enough. The thing that gets our goat hundreds of years after he has returned from Holland is that the charges, just like the defamations of Germans (Indians, Irish, Blacks, Latin Americans) in Franklin's letters, continue. Elders are finite and know it. That is the only basis on which they can be trusted. Certainly we do not agree with them about anything else, being visionary and rash and thinking we can Patch the Crack in the Bell. The basis of trust is pain. None of the problems of employment, housing, environment, energy can be solved without it. Sacrifice is due. Politics urges loss of nothing. None of them are elders.

Jacob Reiff the Elder (1698-1782)

Introduction

In view of the literature, the genome of Jacob Reiff (1698-1782) from his father and mother, and in his brothers and sister that has been so determinate in subsequent generations, must be remembered as part of a community of like souls before and after they lived in Montgomery County PA. Jacob was tempered by being the youngest among 4 brothers, with only one sister younger than he, growing up in the pristine forests of Montgomery Country and roaming with abandon those hills and valleys, further tempered by the kindred spirits of neighbors of high principle and force, among whom he worked and studied. By 1717, the first record of the boundaries of his father's land, he was at 19 a fully seasoned and well educated, completely outside the universities. James Heckler, History of Lower Salford Township (26-35) said “he was the most prominent man in the early history of Salford" (26) so much so that conflict sought him out, but he persevered.

Knowing English, German, Dutch fluently, he was delegated among this people in an ex officio capacity, which would later become official. He is called one of the 4 most educated which no doubt traces to his mother and father, his mother being the daughter of a Dutch Reformed official given all advantage in her education, and his father, a blacksmith, was a man of poised and equable spirit, early and late a man of distinction, so no wonder this Jacob was given his father’s blacksmith tools, no wonder he was an executor among these high spirited people and, thanks be to our Creator, no wonder he was also a polemicist of high order and fought for what he deemed right, with all that will bring in any and every such man, whose spirit unquenched and his faith much tested, was a patriarch to many generations.

No one has written more cogently than Dr. Harry Reiff who uses all his skills and analysis as a PhD chemist to examine these matters. He says,

"the only document in English that I know of that may have been written by an Anna Reiff is the Hans George Reiff will, now in the files in Philadelphia City Hall. Since the will was probated in 1727, it is unlikely that it was written by Jacob's wife Anna, [he means because Jacob did not marry until 1733] but possibly by Jacob's mother Anna. No proof of who or when; and additionally, I've heard that the original will was in German, but no proof of that either. Some years ago I read one of Henry Dotterer's reports from his European travels in which he noted the possibility that Hans George Reiff married Anna Maria, the educated daughter of a Dutch Reformed churchman. If indeed she wrote Hans George's will, she was surely educated. Now, the historian Henry Dotterer wrote several books in his historical journeys. Two of the published books are in the stacks of the Pennsylvania Historical Society in Philadelphia, but there is a third unpublished one which I saw about 10 years ago. They wouldn't let me make a copy of it, but as I recall, Dotterer recounted his visit to the Netherlands and the Dutch Reformed Church archives, where he found data that Hans George married an educated daughter of a church minion (HER, Letters, 20 November 2002)."

These remarks do no jibe with those of Mary Jane Hershey in " Between the Lines: Stories of Women Leaders in the Franconia Conference" that

" Anna Marie Reiff had a daughter-in-law, also named Anna. The younger Anna is remembered through an unusual document which she wrote in 1773. The manuscript was written with "a neat hand in English," quite exceptional because Ann lived in a German-speaking community from which most surviving hand-written papers are in German." (Mennonite Historical Bulletin, October, 1995).

Jacob Reiff the Elder (1698-1782) "was entrusted by the Colonial government as agent among German settlers to collect partial payments on their lands in 1723. He must have been in residence some time before," says Dotterer, to be "well acquainted, and in the confidence of the leading men" (Dotterer in Heckler, Historical Sketches 1886, 31. Adams Apple Press, 1993).

He was Philadelphia County assessor in 1741, deputy for the probate of wills for Philadelphia County, 1743 to 1748. Heckler in his Historical Sketches (1886) said he was "the most prominent man in the early history of Salford" and among the four most "reasonably well educated” men of the area, meaning classically trained. He was a man of some force of character.

His oldest son, Jacob Reiff Jr. (1734-1816), was the first elected member of the Pennsylvania General Assembly from Montgomery County (1786-89) and voted for the Convention to adopt the Constitution of the United States. Jacob Jr. was one of several founders of the Wentz Reformed Church which continued after the Skippack Reformed Church, the first Reformed Church in Pennsylvania dissolved, begun by his father and grandfather. Jacob the Elder's second son, George (1740-1808) became a Mennonite and married Elizabeth Hendricks, daughter of Leonard Hendricks, son of the immigrant Lawrence Hendricks, part of the Krefeld group who settled Germantown in 1683. George's cousins, sons of Conrad Reiff, Jacob's brother, Daniel and Phillip, were officers in the Berks Co. Militia during the Revolution. Their wives were likewise educated, wrote and spoke English and are mentioned in contemporary affairs.

Among the lawless disconnects of this world where either bugs on roses or disease slander the scent, honesty is accused of thievery, righteousness of slaveholding, the Christian of worshiping idols. All this is accomplished in Thomas Jefferson’s human condition, humiliation the birthright of a good man humbled. How then call him good? If we want to know the good of Jacob the Elder we see him accused in that expressive vernacular of Goshenhoppen of the very transgressions the buchstaben, fingern hängen, kerkendiefen crowd were guilty of, the letter-killin', finger-stickin', church-robbers' of the sometime lawless region of Philadelphia before the Revolution. The greatest fiasco is the church money he is charged by his enemies with having embezzled. This is known especially because Jacob has his “Defence,” not that it meant much to his detractors. German Reformed historians affronted him more and more after the fact in order to justify their own John Philip Boehm, the aborted Reformed "pastor" of the Reiff church of 1727. Boehm held a continuous tirade against Jacob and many others, scapegoating him for his own failures, as did the elders of the Philadelphia Reformed church with great duplicity. This dispute over church monies contains within it the very extreme contentiousness of Boehm, the suit of the Philadelphia church elders against Jacob and Jacob's “Defence” against both. Jacob Reiff was a man of high energy and adventure, strong minded against fools, bullies or the self appointed righteous. He was a pioneer not a gelded paradigm of post-modern revolutions.

When James Y. Heckler in his Historical Sketches (1886) wrote that Jacob Reiff was "the most prominent man in the early history of Salford" (26). he meant specifically in the context of the 35 names that appear on the tax list of 1734 (Heckler, 101), but also beyond it. Reiff occupies ten pages in Heckler’s narration of land holdings, families and notable facts of these 35 names. Reiff was set apart from his fellows by a "great force of character," which became evident in the religious tests he was to face. Heckler also places him among the "reasonably well educated" men of Salford, including also the "Rev. George Weiss and Rev. Balthasar Hoffman in the Schwenkfelder denomination; Dielman Kolb and Henry Funk in the Mennonite denomination and Jacob Reiff, the elder, in the Reformed church" (108).

This Rev. George Weiss is not to be confused with the Reformed minister, George Michael Weiss whose interference in Boehm’s pastorate caused all that contention in the first place. This Rev. George Weiss was a skilled dialectician who had defended the Schwenkfelders in Silesia against counter-reformation efforts and fled for his life to America (Heckler, 107-8). Rev. Balthasar Hoffman, accompanied Weiss in his five year embassy to the Emperor: "Hoffman delivered no less than seventeen memorials to the royal ruler" (Heckler, 95), was "a man of eminent wisdom and piety, [who] left behind him a catalogue of his writings, embracing fifty-eight tracts, all on theology and practical religion, besides eighty-three letters on various kindred topics" (96). Dielman Kolb and Bishop Henry Funk were the Mennonite proofreaders for their massive edition of the Martyrs' Mirror of 1748-51 printed by the Ephrata Cloister (Noah H. Mack, 10). Funk also wrote two important Mennonite treatises.

Jacob's father, Hans George Reiff, was a neighbor, friend and more to those Mennonite signers of The Christian Confession of the Faith of the harmless Christians, translated into English in 1727.

Although 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 have been "a man of enterprise and public spirit" (Dotterer in Heckler, 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 petition of 1728 of 77 inhabitants along Skippack Creek who asked the Governor for relief from "the Ingians they have fell upon ye Back Inhabitors…whos Lives Lies at Stake with us and our Poor Wives and Children,"and of 1731 signed by the Reiff brothers George, Peter and Conrad, that asked that "they be permitted to enjoy the rights and privileges of English subjects," had not his back to back trips to Holland intervened. The petition of 1728 might have been better Englished had he been there.

His unsuccessful petition to the Quarter Sessions Court of Philadelphia on September 6, 1736 had a more narrow interest. He and Gerhard In den Hoffen, a previous fellow member of the Reformed church, 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. The petition 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 could 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 for the then undivided large area of Philadelphia County including "the interior townships, such as Salford, Hanover, Amity, Oley, Perkiomen and Skippack, Towamencin, Maidencreek, Saucon, Rockhill, Colebrookdale, Worcester, Providence and Franconia" (Dotterer, 31). This term was from at least 1743 to 1748. "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).

Jacob Reiff spoke and wrote English, German and Dutch evidently since he traveled those five years in Holland. An example of how he may have been prepared by his father for these responsibilities may be seen in his probate of the will of Claus Jansen, the first Mennonite minister at Skippack and friend of Hans George. 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 of course the same trust which Jacob's father, Hans George Reiff had witnessed. Claus Jansen's will, "dated June 1, 1739…was proven before Jacob Reiff, of Lower Salford, deputy register, October 30, 1745" (Heckler, 15). He was obviously similarly acquainted with other associates and friends of his father.

Among other fragments of his official duties in those years appear the will of Christian Allebach, "probated 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. For example he was 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. That 600 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, 79).

His is one of 24 names that appears on the Salford Road Petition to the Quarter Sessions Court of Philadelphia of June 2, 1755. 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 his responsibility in the community occurs in the position of armen pfleger, or overseer of the poor, which Lower Salford instituted by election beginning in 1762 but which became an appointment administered by Philadelphia County after 1768 (Heckler, 110-111). As did many others, Jacob Reiff served a two year term (with Henry Cassel) beginning in 1770. This office continued into the next century in dispersing 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) Reiff served as tax assessor for Lower Salford Township (Heckler,101, Riffe, 40).

Offices and achievements are not so revealing unless they show a man in relation with his family and community. Jacob Reiff's involvement with the first German Reformed church in Pennsylvania reveals much about his life, the character of the time and his neighbors. When Dotterer says that "he was conspicuously identified with the interests of the German Reformed church in Pennsylvania" (Heckler, 30) it is probable this was so from the first meeting of that church unofficially, c. 1720, with the arrival of Boehm, and probably before.

Much later, in 1727, Boehm said that the church met in Jacob Reiff’s house. Probably it met before this in the house of his father, Hans George, which he seems to have inherited on his father's death in early January, 1727.

Like his neighbors he was trying to improve living conditions There was and had to be a significant amount of cooperation among these settlers. If he occupied a position of prominence however it was at least partly due to a heritage from his father. 1) That Jacob, youngest of four brothers, was chosen sole executor and major beneficiary of his father's will, suggests a sympathy between father and son. That he bequeathed him his blacksmith’s tools implies that this was also a trade of Hans George that Jacob also practiced. (see Oley, 48). 2) That the father wanted "Two Indifferent men" to supervise the remaining division of his estate, "to prevent Discord" between four passionate brothers suggests his own wisdom. 3) Hans George’s witnessing of the momentous Mennonite Meetinghouse Trust indicates he was educated, trusted and well known. If it was required that “only members in good standing in the meeting could serve as trustees” (Wenger, 96), it would also follow that their witnesses be known for good character. All of the brothers were active citizens, more or less wealthy, implicitly educated. When Hans George died in 1727 George was 34, Peter 32, Conrad 30, Jacob 28, and Anna Maria, 22.

There is therefore suggestion in Jacob Reiff's trustee work that he was educated because his father was.

The Muhlenberg obsequy of Jacob's mother Anna Maria in 1753 further evidences Jacob Reiff’s character. Alleging a devout upbringing. Muhlenberg says that Jacob's mother, was "a pious widow, a domestic preacher, an intercessor, and a model of godliness." This seems to indicate that wherever the Skippack Reformed Church had early been meeting in Jacob Reiff's house, they had been meeting there while Hans George was yet alive and continued with both Jacob's mother in attendance, brothers Peter and Conrad, sister Anna Maria and brother George as an elder. It should also be remembered that all this time, 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, against the protocols of the Dutch Classis. So the community was fixed in its relations and settled too in its imperfect way. There is no evidence of discord or animosity before the arrival in 1727 of the first ordained Reformed clergy of Pennsylvania, George Michael Weiss, who proved to be the deal breaker.

True to the letter or to the spirit? Historian Hinke says that "in 1730 Peter Wentz was a member of the Skippack Reformed church, an adherent of the Rev. George Michael Weiss" (26) but that his son, Peter Wentz Jr. was a trustee of the Wentz Reformed Church in Worcester, successor to the Skippack church where Jacob Reiff Jr. was also a trustee.

Weiss Overthrows Boehm.

There was a funnel effect from Philadelphia to Germantown to Skippack for new immigrants, but also as a result of his own enterprise and range of contacts Jacob Reiff heard in September of 1727 of the arrival of a colony of Reformed led by the pastor George Michael Weiss. There is no suggestion that Jacob knew of the Hillegas' brothers in Philadelphia before they went abroad to raise this colony. The same purpose that urged upon Boehm for his own reason to become a pastor, there being 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 [Weiss] 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 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 Hillegas 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 would 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 coup, 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).

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, 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 to Pennsylvania, 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 for Holland 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 ( Harry Reiff). It seems very possible that Jacob left to "fetch my relations" immediately after introducing Weiss 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 more to it.

His two trips back to the old country set Jacob Reiff apart from his fellows, but therein he goes from praise to blame. Reformed church historians Harbaugh and Hinke and Glatfelter oppose the favorable views of Hecker and Dotterer about Reiff.

Jacob's Trouble

In the eclogues of Virgil and Spenser shepherds fight for personal glory. Historians fight for innocents and prodigies, auguries and eclipses. But the shepherd wars were not pastorals, they were about a world of freedom and human rights aggravated by a lack of comfort.

Jacob had even more trouble than Conrad. Contemporary accounts, both from himself and his adversaries, none more important than John Phillip Boehm, account his character. Later writers' justifications pile on, like Rev. Hinke, editor of Boehm's letters (1916), who clearly declares: "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, we learn from him..." (Life and Letters, 42). Hinke was also author of the telling A History of the Goshenhoppen Reformed Charge (issued by the Pennsylvania German Society, 1920), heavily weighted toward Reformed Church interests. Add to these Harbaugh, Fathers of the Reformed Church, Good, History of the Reformed Church, Dubbs, History of the Reformed Church in Pennsylvania, Dotterer, and later Glatfelter, Pastors and People. Indeed in window dressing the History of the Goshenhoppen Reformed begins with Weiss, who arrived late in 1727 (September 14) not Boehm, and ministered at churches which he obviously did not found, but he is called the first official.

In the public relations event of the history of the German Reformed Weiss is not a straw man. But when John Frederick Hillegass landed with him in 1727 (I mean the "Rev. George Michael Weiss, the eminent Reformed pioneer clergyman" as he is known) all the previous relationships among the Reformed in greater Philadelphia were disestablished. In point of fact some ten congregations had been and were established by Boehm. Efforts to excuse Weiss, who was determined a combatant as Boehm, miss the point. Early Pennsylvania was a pastoral of battling shepherds out of Spenser's Colin Clout. The Reformed historians' solution to blame the sheep does not reconcile well with the first principals and the arrival of Weiss with Hillegass.

Dotterer says (Historical Notes Relating to the Pennsylvania Reformed Church, 146) they didn't know each other! "They were thrown together just as now strangers are thrown together on ships crossing the Atlantic." But "Weiss was actually the leader of the colony, at whose head he appeared in signing the declaration of allegiance on September 21, 1727" (Hinke, Proceedings and Addresses, A History of the Goshenhoppen Reformed Charge, 34). Michael and George Peter Hillegass already lived in Philadelphia, which is where the fun begins. Weiss immediately deposed Boehm: " I cannot conscientiously recognize Mr. Boehm as a Reformed teacher and preacher, until he submits to an examination and is ordained in Apostolic manner, which he will never be able to do" (36). It is a lot of bluster. Boehm's partisans came to a meeting demanded by Weiss and demanded his credentials, but the joke was that they were in Latin so he had to get German versions which did not come until April the next year (37), prolonging the back and forth between battling shepherds as to who was legitimate. By the time Boehm got himself formally ordained in November 1729, two years of acrimony had passed but more was to come.

For all this difficulty Weiss traveled much and ministered early in Oley among the Newborn, about whom he wrote the early tract Der IN DER AMERICAN SCHEN WILDNUSZ, (In the American Wilderness) (1729) and apparently a book about the Indians (Burnetsfield NY, 1741), but he wanted to be given the care to which he was accustomed. This was not forthcoming. He was no farmer, he was a scholar, and finding scant interest in his offered tutelage for the university among the bumpkins, he hit on a plan to appeal to the old country for support. That was when the voyage with Jacob Reiff was hatched and why.

So the personal acrimony between the shepherds was increased by the need to get money! Weiss arranged a tour of collection, but it was insisted by the same malefactors that blamed him that Jacob Reiff, who had only just returned from just such a trip, accompany Weiss. Dotterer says Reiff had taken a fundraising petition from Weiss on his previous trip, but perhaps D. is confused.

Presumably Reiff too was wanted out of the way, but they did not trust Weiss, there was no specific need for him to go. This Jacob Reiff had only just returned from that same voyage abroad months before, "to fetch relatives." The fund raisers thought they could get him to make even more money for them by putting any monies into trade goods which they could resell at a further profit. Ever after it was all about the money.

So we reopen the inquest into the founding of the first Reformed Church of Pennsylvania, that institution now long deceased, absorbed into what is called the United Church with some others. The inquiry of "the Old First Reformed Church of Philadelphia," means the German Reformed Church (1727) which had an unofficial forerunner in 1725 in Skippack, where a school teacher, John Philip Boehm conducted an informal church, but without being ordained. This was a mortal infraction among rigorous Calvinists. This informal church met in the home of Jacob Reiff about this time, though it met other places too. He however allocated land for a church building which was also begun about then.

Two points of contention arose and were joined. First the hasty and acrimonious disestablishment of Boehm by Weiss, and second the ill fated trip to get the money to buy the goods. Is religion good business or what? It all miscarried. Weiss left Reiff in Europe with the money, came home alone. Reiff put the money into goods as directed, was separated from them, arrived without them amid allegations and gossip of malfeasance, embezzlement, infamy and fraud. Weiss, the material cause of all this, shortly absconded to New York and was not seen for years, during which time these people fought over and over among themselves. What emerges, especially in the letters of Boehm, is as engaging a political-religious struggle as anywhere, but essentially without real victims because Boehm survived, his pride was hurt, the Reformed church survived, it was too top heavy to grow quickly, Jacob Reiff survived, he became an important figure in the Skippack colony. The upshot is that much is revealed about their characters and actions in what they say of each other. We learn what otherwise we would not know of this very intense people.

Not only that but the events reveal a great deal about the later rationalizations of subsequent church historians who, having developed a party line, are at pains to defend it at all cost, finding their only scapegoat to be the same Jacob Reiff, who has suffered subsequently at nearly every outing until finally they have edited him out of their founding completely. In his role as underdog and gadfly Jacob Reiff becomes an immensely appealing character.

There needs to be strong evidence to reopen an inquest, more so in an historical matter of centuries. If only Weiss had not been recruited by the Hillegass brothers, or if only he had taken a broader approach to who could serve. But human nature and its competitiveness rule that out. Weiss may have been a stalking horse for the Hillegasses to build their kingdom. Perhaps they saw Boehm as so intractable he had to be deposed. We do not at first see behind the curtain. As a pawn Weiss could be sacrificed so the Hillegasses could take power.

"An den fingern hangen geblieben" is the vernacular Harbaugh footnotes to his quotation from the classis of Amsterdam, that says that the money "remained in the hands" of Jacob Reiff , but "Mr. Weiss was not implicated in this crooked business"(The Fathers of the German Reformed Church in America, 268). Throughout these accounts, as with Hinke later, testimony is taken from one party prejudiced to the detriment of the other. So the classis, Harbaugh and et. al. take as truth the statements against Jacob Reiff by Diemer and Hillegas. Apologists however do not ever mention that Weiss owned at his death in 1762 "twenty slaves" (274).

New evidence regarding Jacob Reiff uncovered in the letters of John Philip Boehm, tends to exculpate him, showing collusion and slander by later church authorities for the purpose of defending the institution itself. Jacob Reiff was called the Elder to enable him to raise money on the commission of his trips abroad, but his brother George was the elder. Schlatter, Boehm, the Dutch Classis, the later German Reformed Church, merged into the United Church, Harbaugh, Glatfelter, majority opinion sanctioned by institutions and their historians has been a white wash of themselves.

We begin to account some sources 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.

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.

Further Comparative Source Note: There is rather a wave of secondary and tertiary opinion that permeates genealogy and local histories of churches and graveyards. Jacob Reiff and the first Reformed Church is a tsunami of hand me down opinions. What was concluded by those face-saving 19th and early 20th century historians has been repeated without question.

To document these reverberations."There may have been conflicts among members as to the ability of their preachers, similar to other congregations of the time. The major factor in this church's decline was a dispute that started as an accusation that Jacob Reiff had misued 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 their conflicts the rival battling shepherds of Virgil and Spenser, determination and passion, a pastoral recombinant militancy, then we give you a wilkum from early Pennsylvania.

A Brief Vita

Although his father's name, Hans George Reiff, appears on a deed in 1717, the first mention of Jacob Reiff in the diary of Gerhart Clemens, July 2, 1723, suggests him to have been "a man of enterprise and public spirit" (Dotterer in Heckler, 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).

Supposedly he would have signed the early petitions of 1728 and 1731, as did his brothers, George, Peter and Conrad, had not back to back trips abroad intervened. The petition of 1728 of 77 inhabitants along Skippack Creek, asked the Governor for relief from "the Ingians they have fell upon ye Back Inhabitors…whos Lives Lies at Stake with us and our Poor Wives and Children," might have been better Englished had he been there. Another petition to the Assembly in 1731, signed by the Reiff brothers, minus Jacob, asked that "they be permitted to enjoy the rights and privileges of English subjects."

His unsuccessful petition to the Quarter Sessions Court of Philadelphia on September 6, 1736 had a more narrow interest. He and Gerhard In den Hoffen, a previous fellow member of the Reformed church, 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 indicates that church still functioned at that time. The petition 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 could only reflect the same "inaccuracy of early eighteenth century surveying" that bothered Detweiler (v) in his reconstruction of the map of Bebber's Township.

He served as deputy for the probate of wills at least from 1743-1748 for the undivided large area of Philadelphia County, including "the interior townships, such as Salford, Hanover, Amity, Oley, Perkiomen and Skippack, Towamencin, Maidencreek, Saucon, Rockhill, Colebrookdale, Worcester, Providence and Franconia" (Dotterer, 31). "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 may be seen in his probation of the will of Claus Jansen, the first Mennonite minister at Skippack, no doubt friend of Hans George. 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 of course the same trust which Jacob's father, Hans George Reiff had witnessed. Claus Janson's will, "dated June 1, 1739…was proven before Jacob Reiff, of Lower Salford, deputy register, October 30, 1745" (Heckler, 15). He was no doubt similarly acquainted with other associates and friends of his father.

Among other fragments of his official duties of those years 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. For example he was 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. That 600 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). His is one of 24 names that appears on the Salford Road Petition to the Quarter Sessions Court of Philadelphia of June 2, 1755. 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 his responsibility in the community occurs in the position of armenpfleger, or overseer of the poor, which Lower Salford instituted by election beginning in 1762 but which became an appointment administered by Philadelphia County after 1768 (Heckler, 110-111). As did many others, Jacob Reiff served a two year term (with Henry Cassel) beginning in 1770. This office continued into the next century in dispersing 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) Reiff served as tax assessor for Lower Salford Township (Heckler,101, Riffe, 40).

2.

Offices and achievements are not so revealing unless they show a man in relation with his family and community. Jacob Reiff's involvement with the first German Reformed church in Pennsylvania reveals much about his life, the character of the time and his neighbors. When Dotterer says that "he was conspicuously identified with the interests of the German Reformed church in Pennsylvania" (Heckler, 30) it is probable this was so from the first meeting of that church unofficially, at least 1720 with the arrival of Boehm, and probably before.

Much later, in 1727, Boehm said that the church met in Jacob Reiff’s house. Probably it met before this in the house of his father, Hans George, which he seems to have inherited on his father's death in early January, 1727.

Like his neighbors he was trying to improve living conditions There was and had to be a significant amount of cooperation among these settlers. If he occupied a position of prominence however it was at least partly due to a heritage from his father.

1) That Jacob, youngest of four brothers, was chosen sole executor and major beneficiary of his father's will, suggests a sympathy between father and son. That he bequeathed him his blacksmith’s tools implies that this was also a trade of Jacob’s he practiced. (see Oley, 48).

2) That the father wanted "Two Indifferent men" to supervise the remaining division of his estate, "to prevent Discord" between four passionate brothers suggests his own wisdom.

3) Hans George’s witnessing of the momentous Mennonite Meetinghouse Trust suggests that he was educated, trusted and well known. If it was required that “only members in good standing in the meeting could serve as trustees” (Wenger, 96), it would also follow that their witnesses be known for 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.

The Muhlenberg obsequy of Anna Maria further evidences Jacob Reiff’s character. Alleging a devout upbringing. Muhlenberg says that Jacob's mother, was "a pious widow, a domestic preacher, an intercessor, and a model of godliness." This seems to indicate that wherever the Skippack Reformed Church had been meeting, whether that early in Jacob Reiff's house or not, they had been meeting there while Hans George Reiff was yet living and they continued meeting wherever with both Jacob's mother in attendance, brothers Peter and Conrad, sister Anna Maria and with his brother George as an elder.

A Reexamination of Jacob Reiff and the German Reformed Church of PennsylvaniaIt should also be remembered that all this time, 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. So the community was fixed in its relations and settled too in its imperfect way. There is no evidence of discord or animosity before the arrival in 1727 of the first ordained Reformed clergy of Pennsylvania, George Michael Weiss, who proved to be the deal breaker.

4

True to the letter or to the spirit? 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.

Weiss Overthrows Boehm.

No doubt there was a funnel effect from Philadelphia to Germantown to Skippack for new immigrants, but also as a result of his own enterprise and range of contacts Jacob Reiff heard in September of 1727 of the arrival of a colony of Reformed led by the pastor George Michael Weiss. 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).

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.

4.

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)."

Notes -

Source Book and Bibliographical Guide for American Church History By Peter George Mode

"On the German Reformed Church the salient facts are given by J. H. Dubbs in "A History of the Reformed Church, German" ("Amer. Ch. Hist. Ser." Vol. VIII, 1895). Four years later a "History of the Reformed Church in the United States, 1725-1792 " by James I. Good sought to embody, though not always with accuracy, material then recently discovered. A subsequent work (1902) by Dubbs, "The Reformed Church in Pennsylvania" ("Proc. & Addr. Pa.-German. Soc." Vol. XI, pp. 1-349; also issued under separate cover) made revisions in harmony with the researches of Professors Dotterer and Hinke. It will be found highly satisfactory. The "Early History of the Reformed Church in Pennsylvania" (1906) by Daniel Miller, although especially adapted for untrained readers, is thoroughly abreast of the results of latest research. "Early Attempts at Church Union in America" by James I. Good (Papers Amer. Soc. Ch. History, Series II, Vol. II, pp. 105-114) deals with an otherwise neglected chapter in Pa. & New York history.

Biographical sketches of value are as follows: "The Life of Michael Schlatter" (1857) by Henry Harbaugh; "The Fathers of the German Reformed Church in Europe and America" (V Vols. 1857 f.) by Henry Harbaugh and D. Y. Heisler; "The Life of Conrad Weiser" (1876) by C. Z. Weiser; "Life and Times of Henry Antes" (1886) by E. McMinn; "Rev. John Philip Boehm" (1890) by H. S. Dotterer and more notably his "Life and Letters" edited (1916) by W. J. Hinke.

Considerable information is to be found in several local histories, notably "History of the Reformed Church in Philadelphia" (1776) by David Van Home; "History of Berks and Lebanon Counties" (1844) by I. D. Rupp; "History of the Reformed Churches in Chester County" (1892) by J. L. Fluck; "The Early History of the First Reformed Church of Philadelphia, Pa. 1727-1734" by W. J. Hinke, ("Jour. Pres. Hist. Soc." Vol. II, pp. 292-313); "History of the Falckner Swamp Reformed Church ..." (1904) by Rev. G. W. Roth; "The Early History of Wentz's Reformed Church, Montgomery County, Pa." by W. J. Hinke, ("Jour. Pres. Hist. Soc." Vol. Ill, pp. 332-346)."

For investigative purposes the following are accessible: "Report of Rev. Jacob Lischy to Bishop Augustus G. Spangenberg" edited by W.J. Hinke ("Ref. Ch. Rev." Vols. IX and X); "Diary of Lischy's and Rausch's Journey Among the Reformed Congregations in Pennsylvania" edited by VV. J. Hinke (ibid.. Vol. XI); "Letters of the Classis of Amsterdam to John Philip Bochm" ("Ecclesiastical Records of the State of New York" Vols. Ill and IV); "Letters and Reports of Rev. J. P. Boehm" edited by W. J. Hinke ("Jour. Pres. Hist. Soc." Vols. VI and VII); "Diary of the Rev. Michael Schlatter" June 1 to September 15, 1746, edited by W.J. Hinke ("Jour. Pres. Hist. Soc. Vol. Ill); "Minutes and Letters of the Coetus of the German Reformed Congregations in Pennsylvania 1747-1797, together with Three Preliminary Reports of Rev. John Philip Boehm, 1734-1744" (1903) edited by W. J. Hinke and others; and the "Hallische Nachrichten " (as above)

More detailed bibliographical information may be found in "Proc & Addr. Pa. German. Soc." Vol. XI, p. 342 f.

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. These 3 documents are online.

The Commission of Jacob Reiff, 1730

Complaint Against Jacob Reiff, 1732

The Answer of Jacob Reiff, 1733

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 justifying itself, even hundreds of years later. 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 as 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 Gladfelter say the donations were "for building a church in Philadelphia" (44) when all the correspondence says they were for Skippack and Philadelphia?

Why does Gladfelter 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, that "Diemer had been one of the conspirators, who, through his scheme of investing the funds in merchandise, had caused the whole trouble" (56). Gladfelter'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 Gladfelter 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 Boehm reports an occasion when Reiff. did give them a report but it wasn't one they liked, what we may call “The Kierkendieff Report.”

Gladfelter 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. Diemer and Hillegas 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 Pennsylvania Reformed churches, at the outset he was unsure in his own mind whether he would return to Pennsylvania, and since he had practically just arrived, especially in the event that no money existed in Holland and Germany for him to collect, 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 notwithstanding 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 and pretty much the sole instigator against Boehm.

The Reformed historians 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 German Reformed merged the second and third time they were able to make all mention of this event 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, 1742, 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 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 here. The very persons who signed the authority are complainants in the 1732 case. Jacob 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 Keiber

Pieter Lecolie, Deobalt Jung,

Johann Willm Rorig, Christoffel Schmitt,

Henrich Weller Gerhart (G.I.H.) In De Heven, S.N.,

George Peter Hillengass Georg Reif

Hans 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 KERKENDIEF

Let's 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 and 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 who 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, [KERKENDIEF] 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 Holland 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 is involved 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 16 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 1, 1736, Hinke,328) and Boehm (236) about who is responsible. Undeniably, the efficient cause of all that happened is 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 1732 is true, but does not actually say so! These "witnesses" 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, l9l6), 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. Alleged forgery 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 merged in 1934 to form the Evangelical and Reformed Church and after that was absorbed into the United Church of Christ. Its church history has 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 baptize and serve communion, and to make any decisions relating to local government of churches and 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 (Hinke. 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 "(Hinke. 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 (a later Reiff church pastor, later editor and principal at Ephrata, see @ Time Travel Eighteenth Century Pennsylvania). 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 1734 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 1730 to 173l 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

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? Instead they lie, blame others to save their skin. And what is it that makes all jealousies, lies, betrayals worthwhile? The 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, or at least formalized forever. But at least some thought should be given to the idea that if the shepherds are divided why should the sheep be blamed. This leads us to a closer look at those shepherds. There were some peculiarities afoot. They were doctrinally exact but cold as ice. The problem manifests itself in the manifest 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)."

The Reformed Pastors: Boehm

Jacob Reiff was evidently a man who would speak to you face to face. Boehm was one of many victims of the dialectical fratricides of the Philadelphia brethren of 1725 to 1750, but he had trouble keeping his own counsel. It is not out of the mouth of babes that Boehm constantly calls Jacob" the insolent Reiff" (447), " bold and impertinent" (410). It is not of the suckling when he seeks "to silence the audacious Reiff" (270). What we have here could be a failure to communicate but it is better cast as a conflict between the old and the new.

I follow Boehm,

I follow Weiss,

I'd follow Miller

But I won't follow Reiff.

(see "followers of Reiff" in Letters 273)

John Philip Boehm was a schoolmaster when he emigrated to Philadelphia about 1720. It is thought that as early as l723 he began to officiate as a reader in informal services at Skippack and about 1725 to function as a pastor there. There is some doubt whether he himself would have called it then a church, lacking as it did the trappings of ordained authority. Of course he knew the importance of ordained authority because he was himself the son of a Reformed pastor.

He had certain duties as a schoolmaster of the Reformed Church at Worms and later Lambsheim (1708-1720) as it was a church school. These duties included reading the Scripture during the service, posting the hymns, cutting the communion bread, but not administering the sacraments or baptisms. There being no such Reformed officials in Skippack things were informal there for about five years, until the arrival of Weiss in 1727. Remember, this is among a small group of people of 50 to l00. They met in homes New Testament style, but unlike the NT, could not select a member to lead them (as the Mennonites did). This of course is because they were Reformed, hence structured a certain way, unable to provide for the new because of the old. Boehm knew this law as well as anyone, having served as church adjunct and schoolmaster in Holland and being the son of the pastor. But there he had also had serious feuds with laymen, elders even, over his preferences, rewards, priorities. Suits were filed, petitions made, angers aroused, reconciliations forsworn. The point is that before he ever set foot in the baptismal he knew the rules and he had a definite adversarial bent. He woke up in the new world and found himself old.

He says they begged him with tears to assume the pastor's role, but when the majority told him to leave he wanted to stay. Naturally enough (for he was later ordained and founded a number of Reformed churches) he was most attached to the Skippack church, his first if not his best love. But ordained the illegal became a legalist and insisted upon his own rights, as he had in Holland. Why not just walk away and be a farmer, which he also was, or pastor, since he was ordained, at other churches? Why sustain a dissension, especially considering the eminent advice Muhlenberg had for Pastor Voigt that, "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 way you have to sympathize with Boehm. In his conflict with Reiff all he ever wanted was to preach in the Reiff Church. Even in 1744 in his Report to the Synod he says "I still hope that when Reiff has once been taken to account for the collected money, he will have to give up the church which stands upon his property" (Letters, 411). It makes you wonder when he wrote this, since that Building was removed in l743.

And why do the Reformed historians not suggest that his too rash personality was the source of his trouble. There were few that he could get along with for very long, excluding the steadfast William Dewees. Boehm had it out with everyone else if he couldn't get his way, including every one of the Reformed pastors. He had a contentious spirit. Like ourselves, he was his own worst enemy.

Certainly his compulsive defensive personality and the validation he sought from the Holland synods was entirely the motive for most of the letters he sent, which are now a treasure trove of unparalleled merit as a record of that time. His suffering is our reward, but like any tortured unfortunate who can't get respect, we must judge his antagonisms in their context, not take them as gospel truth as does the Rev. William J. Hinke, Ph.D., D.D.

If Boehm is his own worst enemy his biographer, Hinke is his second, for he magnifies the adversarial tone of Boehm's troubles by making everybody choose up sides: Wentz was "an adherent " of Weiss, Lefeber "sided" with Weiss, Schuler was one of the "officers of Boehm's congregation" (25,26). The congregations continually belong to Boehm, again and again, "Boehm's congregation," "Boehm's congregations," until we are surprised not to read 'upon this Boehm I will build my church." If we think at all that leaders should set the tone for followers then Boehm and the Reformed scholars got exactly what they exemplified: 'I follow Paul, I follow Apollos, I follow Cephas, I follow Christ." I follow Boehm, I follow Weiss.

Boehm wants us to believe they are also saying, I follow Reiff. But Reiff hated it and there is no record subsequently where he went to any church. Some think, Harry Reiff included, that he became a Mennonite, which in the tone of the current schism between the Reformed/Lutheran scholars and the “sectarians” in Pennsylvania who hold each other at arm’s length, the beat goes on. In Boehm we find a conflicted soul not in a situation wholly of his own making whose every instinct is to seek redress when wronged, and solace and support from hierarchy.

The two men differ as significantly as do their fathers. Throughout his life, Boehm's father, Phillip Ludwig Boehm (l646-l726), pastor at Hochstadt, was vexed with quarrels and troubles, prosecuted for poaching, reprimanded and suspended for domestic troubles and complaints by his congregation and rash speaking. Hans George Reiff (1659-1726) was a smith, farmer, and landowner, a man of application and therefore wealth who was likewise educated. While he was of the Reformed church he apparently helped in some way to build the Salford Mennonite Meetinghouse where he is likewise buried. When we speak of their sons we can see Boehm has no immediate new world root and struggled continuously, while Jacob Reiff, confident, well respected and self assured in his demeanor has some voice remaining.

Your Reiff Church Pastors

Miller exited the Reformed ministry for the Ephrata Dunkards in the most dramatic manner by burning their holy books. A radical and player in later Epharta events and the American revolution, when Weiss went back to Holland in the spring of l730 Boehm thought this absence might result in his reinstatement. Thus he complained to the New York pastors on November 15, 1730 when Miller was installed in Weiss's place instead of himself

John Bartholomew Rieger--pastor from l73l to l734

John Henry Goetschy--pastor from l735 to l740

Peter Henry Dorsius--pastor from l737 to l743

Buchstaben: The Letter--the letter kills but the spirit brings life. THE LETTER Faileth--"If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." I Timothy 5:

Jacob's Party The Money-- catch the kerkendief

Has a crime been committed. There are two possible contradictions in JR's Defense. First, whose idea really was it that the money should be "laid out in goods" (Dubbs, 64)? Reiff says that it was "proposed by the said George Michael Weitzius (alias Weiss) that it should be laid out in goods and merchandise" and that this "Doctor Wilhelmus approved of." That further Weiss "directed this defendant to lay out what money should come to his hands in certain goods and merchandise, a particular whereof he delivered to this defendant in writing, intimating that it would be much more for the advantage of the sd. Congregation that to carry it over in specie."

However, how does that reconcile with the letter Boehm speaks of when making the charge of Kierkendief against Diemer, et. al. Boehm may well have mistaken, but he says that Reiff said "if they had not written to me, I would not have done it." (Letters, 236) Then he showed a letter which they had sent to him to Holland which, after taking the authority from Weiss (which he had received from the whole congregation and transfered to Jacob Reiff).

So whose idea was it ? Diemer's, Weiss? The tales conflict. There is no doubting that these suggestions were made because JR had "laid out in goods" on his first voyage.

Secondly, what was really JR's motive to take this second trip. He says that some of the collected funds were to have been paid to him for the land and the church building whose costs he had advanced. Did he go to collect the money so he could pay himself? He says that he had "advanced, lent and paid before his voyage to Holland about the sum of L 150 Penisilvania curreancy, in order to purchase some land and build a church for the use of the said congregations, which money remains unpaid with the interest thereof to this day. And this defendant for their greater ease in repaying the same condescended to wait till the aforesaid monies so collected in Holland should arrive." He says this to evidence that" he has been so far from injuring the said congregations sthat in all things he has constantly endeavored to promote their interest."

Why does Boehm think he's going to get any of the money?

Maybe they don't mean to, but scholars still implicitly fight the battles originally fought. "The majority of pre-1727 German immigrants to Pennsylvania were seekers of the religious freedom that had been offered to Germans by William Penn in 1681. Many migrants were sectarians, such as the Mennonites, shedding the oppressive rule of Lutheran or Reformed princes. Some were members of visionary and pietist groups. A few were "church people" (i.e., members of the Lutheran or Reformed churches), fleeing persecution by rulers of other persuasions. (Philip E. Pendleton, Oley Valley Heritage, Oley: The Pennsylvania German Society, l994, l5)

A chief question an inquirer into these matters has is: why do later writers continually repeat that Jacob Reiff refused to give an account of the funds. He gives an account in his Defense, in the public meeting of 1734 and to Schlatter.

The history of colonial Pennsylvania must background the life of anyone who lived there, even more so if he were embroiled in the contemporary conflicts. But the biography of a person is not a biography of his time. The conflicts of that day were certainly ethnic and religious and in consequence of which, political, for without Penn's charter the liberty exercised there would have been circumscribed by the imposed orders of the old world or those of New England. As Mittelberger observed, Philadelphia, unlike old world cities, had no wall around it. Of course it's difficult to control your neighbor if in a moment he can disappear right into the forest, but he didn't have to since many of his rights of expression were politically guaranteed. We can see how many abuses against the old world orders might occur in this environment. Atavists and obstructionists, old worlders, do not think a common man worthy of speaking his mind and would do a lot to prevent it, so liberty is a felix culpa, a happy flaw, though disordered and chaotic, especially when people get used to the idea that they are free to achieve their own destiny and begin to be responsible about it.

In 1720, in Germantown, or outside in Skippack, the immigrants could devote their attention to fighting among themselves. They did this religiously and the more they fought the more their permanent records were generated.

It is always ironic that the best windows on the past stem from legal and religious difficulties, but without them few of the inferences we make would be possible. Embedded in all this are Boehm's endless rages of "cunning unfaithfulness" (328) and Diemer's "church-robbery" (Dubbs, 66) ad infinitum, that they charge Jacob Reiff with, and more, but we should accept their rhetoric as a function of their mindset. The German colonial history of Philadephia is a long harangue of charges and counter charges, overdrawn, inflammatory and from later perspective, unjustified. Brother against brother, people from the same towns in the Palatine, people of the same religious background fighting tooth and nail about absurdly small differences.

While not officially ordained, Jacob Reiff (1698-1782) was sometimes called The Elder, not because he had a son named Jacob Jr. either (1734-1816), but because he was sent to Holland with Weiss and was implicitly asked to act as one. At 31 he was 15 years the junior of Boehm. He had grown up in Skippack with his brothers and sister, the son of his father who also was respected as a charitable and honest man. The Reiffs were farmers and implicitly educated people for their literacy, as well as pioneers.

Charges:

l. He forged the letter.

2.He stole the money.

3. He had a party.

4. He was insolent.

5. He is an embarrassment to the founding.

6. He is Weis's best friend. The "leading layman" Gladfelter 38l.

7. He refused to give an account. This repeats what his accusers say only.

Defenses:

l. Muhlenberg's testimonial

2. His own confession

3. His eventual settlement and exoneration

4. Is he a purveyor of church freedom (in the forgery)?

5. Is he the sport of the vexatious Philadelphia cabal?

6. The evidence of a frame-up and a cover up.

Gladfelter: "the unhappy, long-drawn-out affair in which he was the central figure" (117).

The pretense of objective history is so exposed.

Introduction to the Commission, Complaint and Answer of Jacob Reiff

Freedom of association, congregationalism, religious freedom, not authority, created the independent congregations who engaged preachers "for the year, like cowherds in Germany" (Gottlieb Mittelberger, Journey to Pennsylvania, 47): "When any one fails to please his congregation, he is given notice." Mittelberger did not see the silver lining, "liberty in Pennsylvania does more harm than good to many people" (48). "Excessive freedom," he calls it famously, "heaven for farmers, paradise for artisans and hell for officials and preachers" (48). This freedom was an extension of Penn's vision for Pennsylvania, and a desire for it underlies the Jacob Reiff controversy.

Authority most often says the opposite of what it means.The unofficial history of the German Reformed Church claims "their concerns were pragmatic. They did not bring pastors with them." But they were totally unpragmatic. According to their own laws they could not baptize or celebrate communion without ordained leaders. Teachers, or readers without ordination had to step in to serve this need: "because these men called Readers were not ordained ministers, the settlers could not have their children baptized nor partake of Holy Communion" (History of Bethany United Church of Christ, Ephrata, Pennsylvania, 1730-1976).

This deception continue in the modern authority: "they realized that they were sheep without a shepherd. Having come to Pennsylvania for religious freedom but finding no place to worship God, they would gather in houses, barns or groves and select a man who could read well to read sermons and prayers." But the Reformed did not emigrate for religious freedom. As Frederick S. Weiser observes: "Reformed and Lutheran, along with the Roman Catholics, were the only legally recognized churches in Germanic lands. Mennonites and other Anabaptists existed in hiding and defiance of the law. But it is important to note regarding the Pennsylvania migration that whereas almost all the Anabaptists left Europe, the Lutheran and Reformed emigration was not undertaken for religious reasons or because of persecution...but for opportunity" (Pennsylvania German Fraktur, xx).

In Bern, Zurich and in the Palatinate the Reformed were the state church. Mennonites in Pennsylvania had been oppressed for two centuries by those authorities in Germany, Holland, Switzerland. The Reformed establishment executed Mennonites. If you held "pernicious views in regard to the sacraments" you could be drowned in a bag (Bloody Theatre, 485). "King Ferdinand declared drowning (called the third baptism) "the best antidote to Anabaptism". Persecutions followed Anabaptists to Holland and the Low Countries. Mennonites migrated to the Ukraine, children of whom in the 1800's emigrated to the Midwest to be visited in Nebraska by Bishop Andrew Mack. The United Church (UCC) today is that Reformed church of old continued, but nobody wants to take credit for their doctrines of blood. If the Reformed were fleeing the so-called Palatinate "oppression and poverty" they were fleeing themselves. Thousands of people were executed for being rebaptised. Baptize your baby or die. Rebaptize your baby and you die. Hierarchy vs. democracy was so embarrassing that later denominations hid their complicity. It was the Anabaptists who wanted freedom and escaped to find it.

Reformed clergy that settled in Philadelphia thought itself superior to the supposed ignorant lay pastors of the Mennonites. Mennonite leaders were "uneducated." This is also charged against Jacob Reiff. The top down Rformed hierarchy contradicted emerging democratic Pennsylvania. Mennonites ordained by lot, not seminary. Early Reformed generations were forced into something like this, had to create leadership. "Readers," unordained in the case of the Skippack church and others, were drafted. John Philip Boehm preached and performed the sacraments from 1725 until September 1727 when a colony of Reformed settlers brought as their religious head the first legitimate church official, Rev. George Michael Weiss. Before Weiss' arrival the only means of grace at Skippack had been school teacher and Reader Boehm. The day Weiss landed practically, he systemically routed Boehm from every church.

Pennsylvania was famous for its enthusiasms Weiss was only the instrumental cause of division of church order.. Conrad Weiser and Conrad Beissel burned the Heidelberg Catechism as the sometime agency of death along with Reformed governance. Judges of those duly constituted old world councils made clear to Mennonites how free they were to disagree. Believe or die. Shadows of this are everywhere in Weiss' contentiousness. The German Reformed Church in Pennsylvania derived its ideas c. 1725 from Zwingli and Calvin two centuries before. It eventually became the Evangelical and Reformed Church, merged with the Congregational Christian Churches, then merged again and became the United Church (UCC) in 1957.

The Commission of Jacob Reiff, 1730

Here begin verbatim accounts in the matter of “Papers in Reiff Case, 1732 -1749,” including the Commission of, the Complaint against and the Answer to, first translated and published by the Rev. J. R. Dubbs for the centennial of the Reformed Church U.S. separation from Holland, 1893. These papers represent an early insight into Pennsylvania politics, immigration and social order. According to Dubbs they are the earliest documents of the German Reformed churches of Pennsylvania. Notably, “errors in orthography and grammatical construction have been carefully retained as they appear in the original.”

The papers impact other contemporaries of the time, especially John Philip Boehm, the first, but unofficial pastor of the Reiff Church of Skippack, defrocked by Rev. George Michael Weiss when he arrived as part of an immigrant colony in 1727. Notable members of that colony led by Weiss include the central figure of the Complaint, Frederick Hillegass.

Dotterer says in Historical Notes Relating to the Pennsylvania Reformed Church (146) that Weiss and Hillegass didn't know each other, that "they were thrown together just as now strangers are thrown together on ships crossing the Atlantic." But Hinke, editor of the letters of Boehm, says, (Proceedings and Addresses, A History of the Goshenhoppen Reformed Charge, 34) "Weiss was actually the leader of the colony, at whose head he appeared in signing the declaration of allegiance on September 21, 1727." Shortly thereafter Weiss declared, “I cannot conscientiously recognize Mr. Boehm as a Reformed teacher and preacher, until he submits to an examination and is ordained in Apostolic manner, which he will never be able to do." Boehm complains bitterly of this interference and its effect in his letters. After the new colony had established itself in Philadelphia, Jacob Reiff of Skippack by Reformed protocol supported Weiss in deposing Boehm, but as events transpired the churches of Philadelphia and Skippack were more and more opposed. In October 1727 Boehm said Skippack was the "place to which I had been regularly called," an affront to Reformed piety, first because the congregation not the hierarchy called him and second because he was outside their clerical authority, hence had to be brought into line.

The Complaint asks for security that Reiff will not depart the province not because they think he will, but because it is a tactic to provoke the court to order this Answer in response.

Dubbs' comments on the writing of the Commission are, “the meaning of this document is not quite clear. It is incorrectly written, and several words are evidently omitted. The following is, however, as nearly as possible a literal translation”...it was filed by Reiff in the court of chancery, and may be presumed to be a correct copy of the original (Dubbs, 57, 58).

Jacob Reiff’s name is spelled three different ways in the German complaint. It looks drawn up on the spot by one of the complaining elders which would explain the missing words and incorrect writing. Dubbs own considered view and his exoneration of Jacob Reiff, did not reach the biographers and polemicists of the past centuries any more than it did the present sanitized versions of this early history. Dubbs' version more fully appears here.

The Commission

Nachdeme unser Her Pastor Weissen sich resolviret mit seinem bey sich habenden Geferten Jacob Reiffen nach England und Rotterdam eine reise zu thun um die Colecte welche da in loco um erbauung einer Kirche alhiesiger Lande bereit liege, als wird Jacob Reiffen hiemit die Vollmacht gegeben alles zu besorgen, damit Herr Weiss mit solchser sogleich expedirt und zur ruckkehr nach Pennsylvanien begeben soll. Wie wir ihme dann alles auf sein gutes Gewissen übergeben, auch die Vollmacht in allem überlassen. Welches wir zur Steuer eigenhandig unterschreiben. So geschehen, Philadelphia d. 19 ten May, 1730.

Es wird dabey gebeten Jacob Reiff möchte alles auf solche

Arth richten dass wenn Herr P. Weiss nicht mehr in das

Land kommen wolte oder solte, Er als Reif sogleich

Einen von Heidelberg mit sich zu nehmen ihn auf das

Nöthigate zu besorgen: weilen wir wenn allenfals die Collecten

Gelder nicht mehr in loco waren nicht nöthing finden dass

H. Weiss weiter suck zu verreissen, sondern nach bester

Besorgung er Jacob Reif die Briefe an behörigen Orten

Zu besellen und selbst nach einen Antwort zu befragen.

Mir sämmtl. Aeltesten der beyden Gemeinen zu Philadelphia und

Schiebach.

J. DIEMER, D. M. P., WENDEL KEIBER,

PIETER LECOLIE, DEOBALT JUNG,

JOHANN WILLM RÖRIG, CHRISTOFFEL SCHMITT,

HENRICH WELLER GERHART (G. I. H.) IN DE HEVEN, S. N.,

GEORGE PETER HILLENGASS, GEORGE REIFF,

HANS MICHEL FRÖLICH, GEORGE PHILIP DODDER,

MICHEL HILLENGASS.

“Foreasmuch as our pastor Weiss, in company with his travelling 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 good conscience, and give him plenary in everything. In testimony whereof we sign our names. Given at Philadelphia May 19, 1730

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 of 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”

Complaint Against Jacob Reiff, 1732

[Both Complaint and Answer were first published in the Reformed Church Review (1893, 68f) as "Papers in the Reiff Case, 1730-1749," edited by Rev. J. H. Dubbs. Here is Dubbs own considered view, but his exoneration of Jacob Reiff did not reach those biographers and polemicists who present sanitized versions of this early history. Dubbs version here.]

[The Complaint]

Philadelphia, Nov. 23, 1732

To the Honorable Patrick Gordon, Esqr., Lieut. Governor of the Province of Pennslvania, etc. In Chancery.

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.

In Humble Manner Sheweth.

That a great number of Protestants born under the Ligeance of the Emperor of Germany did about ten years since come over into this Province, and being settled in divers parts thereof, but especially in the city of Philada., formed themselves into a Religious Society, commonly called by the name of the German Reformed Church; for the good order and government whereof, by the advice of their minister, one George Michael Weiss, alias Weitzius, they appointed Church Wardens or Ancients: To which Trust your petitioners sometime in January last were called.

That in the year one thousand seven hundred and thirty the Worthy Synods of South and North Holland together with the Assembly of Deacons of the reformed church of the city of Amsterdam and the mayor and aldermen of the ad. City and other well disposed persons in tender consideration of the necessitious circumstances of the greatest part of the members of the ad. German reformed Church at Philada., did by Voluntary Contributions collect the sum of two thousand one hundred and ninety-seven guilders amounting to three hundred and two pounds sterling money of Great Britain, and the same sum did deposit in the hands of ye sd. George Michael Weitz (who together with the Deft. Jacob Reiff then [sent, rather] in Holland, [note the distortion] had been making application in behalf of the sd. Religious society at Philad. for the Charities of piously disposed persons there).

That the sd. George Michel Weitzius and the Deft. Reiff are since returned into this province and the said Weitzius is removed to Albany in the Government of New York: But before his Departure did render to these Complts. A Distinct Account in Writing of the sums of money by him recd. so as afd., and did declare that he had delivered to the sd. Deft. the afd., two thousand one hundred and ninety-seven Guilders under special trust and Confidence that he the ad. Deft. should pay the same to the Church Wardens or Ancients of the Reformed Church at Philada. for the uses afd. [There is no record of Weiss keeping books whatever. This certainly sounds like an effort of the Philadelphia elders to expropriate the entire collection for themselves.]

Notwithstanding which the sd. Jacob Reiff tho’ often requested by these 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 afd.

And these Complts. further say, that they are informed and do verily believe that the ad. Jacob Reiff is about to depart this province and to transport himself into parts beyond the seas where the process of this Honorable Court of Chancery cannot reach him, all which matters and things do further appear by the affidavit hereunto annext. [This means to spur the injunction is not a real fear that they thought he would abscond, though it is odd that Weiss so soon did]

In tender consideration whereof; forasmuch as such proceedings are directly contrary to Equity and Good Conscience, may it please your Honour to grant unto your petitioners His Majesty’s most gracious Writt of Ne Exeat provincia to the Sheriff of the County of Philada. directed Commanding the ad. Sheriff that he cause the ad. Jacob Reiff to come before him and to find sufficient security that he will not depart this province without special license for the same or until he make answer to the Bill of Complaint of your petitioners and further then do and receive what by this Honble. Court shall in that behalf be awarded.

And your petitioners as in duty bound shall every pray, &; c.

Nov. 23, 1732, Be it so J. Growdon,

p. Cancell. Conc. P. Querent

R. Charles, Regr.

The Answer of Jacob Reiff, 1733

[The Answer, 1733]

[The Answer of Jacob Reiff is one continuous writing. All paragraphs here and bold type are added.]

The answer of Jacob Reiff, defendant, to the bill of complaint of John Deimer, Michael Hillegass, Joest Schmidt, Hendrick Weller, Jacob Siegel and Wilhelm Rohrich, complainants.

This defendant saving and reserving to himself now and all times hereafter all and all manner of benefit and advantage of exception to the manifold errors, untruths, uncertainties, insufficiencies and imperfections in the said complainants bill of complaints contained, for answer thereunto or unto so much thereof as this defendant is advised is anyway material for him, this defendant to make answer unto, he answereth and saith he believes it to be true, that about ten years since, divers Protestants born under the ligeance of the emperour of Germany, did transport themselves into this province, from such inducements as in the complainants said bill of complaint is mentioned.

And that in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and twenty seven, they formed themselves into a religious society as near as they could upon the model of the German Reformed Church, and that they unanimously chose to themselves George Michael Weitzius (alias Weiss) in the bill named for their pastor. And this defendant saith that for the better discipline and government of the said society, they divided themselves into two congregations, one of the said congregations called the German Reformed Church of Philadelphia, and the other called the German Reformed Church of Skippack. That each of the said congregations did in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and twenty seven, elect four church-wardens or elders, the Peter Lecolie, Johan Wilhelm Roerig, Hendrick Weller, and Geo. Peter Hillegass were then elected church-wardens or elders for the German Reformed Church of Philadelphia, and Wendel Keiber, Gerhart In-de-haven, Christopher Schmidt and George Reiff were then elected church-wardens elected since by the said congregations, or either of them, as this defendant knows or believes. And this defendant doth deny that John Diemer, Michael Hillegass, Joest Schmidt and Jacob Seigel or either of them was ever elected or appointed elders or church-wardens of the said German Reformed Church of Philadelphia or of Skippack, or of any other place or church with this province, according to the rules, order, and customs of the said church of Philadelphia or Skippack, or any other German Reformed Church within this province as this defendant knows or believes. Wherefore, this defendant humbly conceives and is advised that neither the said complainants John Diemer, Michael Hillegass, Joest Schmidt, and Jacob Siegel, nor either of them, nor the said complainants Hendrick Weller and William Roerigh, without the rest of the said church-wardens or elders of the said German Reformed Church of Philadelphia together with the church-wardens or elders of the German Reformed Church of Skippack, have any right to call this defendant to account for the matters and thing alleged in the said bill of complaint.
[we note he omits mention of the meetings in his home with Boehm prior to 1727]

But for as much as this defendant is willing that a just and true account may be rendered of all his actings and doing in relation to the trust mentioned in the complainants’ said Bill of Complaint, and that this defendant may be discharged from the said trust and have the direction of this honorable court therein, he further answereth and said that the said congregations of Philadelphia and Skippack in conjunction with their minister George Michael Weitzius (alias Weiss) did prefer a petition to the excellent Classis of Divinity in the United Provinces, which petition this defendant said was signed and subscribed by the church-wardens or elders of both the said congregations of Philadelphia and Skippack, and (as this defendant remembers) it set forth the unhappy and necessitous condition of the said congregations and prayed the charitable donations of the said Classis, and this defendant delivered the said petition to Doctor Wilhelmus in the bill named.

This defendant believes a report was spread in Pensilvania that collections of money had thereupon been made, and that before such news arrived the said George Michael Weitzins (alias Weiss) had prepared to return to Holland or Germany, and that upon receiving the said news the said congregations or one of them might entreat him to stay, to which the said George Michael Weitzius (alias Weiss) might make such answer as in the complainants said bill of complaint is set forth, and might promise to serve them to the utmost of his power; and this defendant doth acknowledge himself to have been a member of the German Reformed Church of Skippack from its first establishment, but not of the German Reformed Church of Philadelphia, as in the bill charged.

And this defendant doth deny that he usually traded into Holland or Germany, as in the complainants said bill of complaint is falsely suggested , other than and except that this defendant went over there in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and twenty seven to fetch his relations, and laid out his money (as passengers generally do) in goods fit for sale in this country. And this defendant saith that before or since that time he never carried on any trade to or from Holland or Germany (except as hereinafter mentioned). And this defendant doth admit that he was acquainted with Doctor Wilhelmus in the bill named, and was informed by him that a collection had been made in favor of the said congregations of the German reformed Church of Philadelphia and Skippack to the amount of about two hundred guilders, but knows not of his own knowledge what sum collected.

And this defendant saith that the said Doctor Wilhelmus requested him this defendant to receive the monies so collected for the use of the sd. Congregations of Philadelphia and Skippack. But this defendant absolutely refused so to do, having been informed by letter from some of his friends in Pensilvania that some of the members of the sd. Congregations were jealous or entertained some suspicions of this defendants’ honesty, or to that purpose. [so he would not transport the monies on his first trip]

And this defendant said that he this defendant returned to Holland from Pensylvania in August in the year of our Lord 1729 and denies that he did acquaint the said congregations, church-wardens or elders, or any person or persons whatsoever, that he intended a voyage to Holland and from these to Frankfort in Germany, or that he should be glad of the company of the said George Michael Weitzius (alias Weiss) or that he would willingly assist him in doing any service he could to his brethren of the Reformed Church of Philadelphia; or that if he should stand in need of any money for that purpose or for his own private wants that he this defendant would furnish him, or anything to that or the like purpose, as in the said bill of complaint is falsely suggested.

But on the contrary this defendant saith that on his return from Holland to Pensilvania in the year of our Lord 1729 as aforesaid (or any time afterwards till prevailed on as hereafter mentioned) he had no thought or design of going abroad any more. But several of the church-wardens or elders of the said congregations of Philada. and Skippack and the said George Michael Weitzius (alias)Wei-s) frequently applied to the defendant and earnestly entreated him to go to Holland and Germany once more to accompany and assist the said George Michael Weitzius (alias Weiss) in collecting and receiving monies collected and to be collected for the use of the said congregations. And the better to prevail on this defendant to comply with their request they voluntarily and of their own accord faithfully promised that they would reimburse and pay to this defendant all costs and charges and expenses that he should be at in the said voyage, and that they would likewise pay and allow him any reasonable satisfaction for his time and trouble therein. [as if they did not trust Weiss]

But this defendant often refused to take the said voyage, this defendant being then employed in carrying on certain buildings on his plantation at Skippack, and it was likely to be very prejudicial to this defendants affairs. And this defendant saith that in order to get rid of their importunities he endeavored to get some other person to undertake the said voyage in his stead and accordingly offered £5 out of his own pocket to one Hans William Rohrich who was willing to go. But neither of the said congregations thought fit to trust him. And this defendant saith that by the continued importunities of the said members of the said congregations, their elders or church-wardens and minister; induced by their fair promises expecting that agreeable thereto he should be reimbursed all the charge and expense he should be at and be also generously rewarded for his trouble and upon the said elders or church-wardens signing an instrument for that purpose, the said defendant was at length prevailed upon to undertake the said voyage, tho’ hazardous, troublesome and very prejudicial to this defendants affairs and interest, and the great displeasure and uneasiness of his most intimate friends and relations.

And this defendant saith that true it is a power was given to this defendant signed by the elders or church-wardens of both the said congregations of Philadelphia and Skippack, but [1] denies that the said power is of the purport or contents in the bill set forth, or [2] that he was thereby enjoined to observe the directions of the Classis in Holland, as may appear by the said power now in the defendants possession and ready to be produced to this honorable court, a copy whereof is to the defendants answer annexed, which this defendant prays may be taken as part of this his answer. And this defendant believes it was given without his knowledge. And this defendant doth admit that such application was made and such instrument signed by your honor as in said complainants’ said bill of complaint is mentioned.

And this defendant saith he believes it to be true that such a book call a collect-book, as in the bill mentioned, was prepared by the church-wardens or elders the said congregations, but knows it not of his own knowledge. But this defendant said that when the said George Michael Weitzius (alias Weiss) was about to leave Holland and return to Pennsilvania he the said George Michael Weitizius (alias Weiss) delivered this defendant a book which in the title page thereof (wrote in High Dutch) is called ‘a general book of collects made for the use of the reformed High Dutch congregations of Philadelphia and Skippack in Pennsilvania, which certifies for a testimony of truth their minister together with the elders or church-wardens.’

Underneath which title or writing is subscribed the names of the said minister George Michael Weitzius (alias Weiss) and the names of the said elders or church-wardens of the said congregations of Philadelphia and Skippack, in which said book is also contained certain memorandums and copies wrote (as this defendant verily believes) by the said Gorge Michael Weitzius (alias Weiss) in which memorandums is mentioned to have been given several sums of money to the amount of two thousand and one hundred guilders and upward, which book the said defendant now hath in his custody and is ready to produce to this honorable court.

This defendant saith he embarked with said George Michael Weitzius (alias Weiss) for Holland and arrived there about the time the complainants’ said bill of complaint mentioned, and that upon their arrival the said George Michael Weitzius (alias Weiss) and this defendant made application to Doctor Wilhelmus and other persons for the collected money above mentioned, and requested the same might be paid to the said George Michael Weitzius (alias Weiss) for the use of the said congregations of Philadelphia and Skippack, and the said George Michael Weitzius (alias Weiss) did several times receive several sums of money on that account, but how much or to what sums this defendant cannot remember. And this defendant saith that the said George Michael Weitzius (alias Weiss) did also then give this defendant another power to act in the premises in his absence, but did not enjoin him to follow the directions of the Classis in Holland neither did this defendant promise him so to do. Nevertheless this defendant said he always observed and punctually followed the direction of the said Classis and Presides of Holland in managing the affair so committed to his care for the said congregations, and that the said Classis and Presides of Holland never gave this defendant any other directions than the manner and places how and where the monies should be collected, as this defendant knows or remembers.

And this defendant denies he ever acquainted the said George Michael Weitzius (alias Weiss) that he designed to go and trade at Frankfort in Germany, neither had this defendant any other trade or business there than to collect money for the said congregations of Philadelphia and Skippack and otherwise to negotiate their affairs.

And this defendant doth deny he ever received the sum of two thousand one hundred and thirty-two guilders and twelve stivers, or any sum or sums of money whatsoever of the said George Michale Weitaius (alias Weiss). But said that by virtue of a letter or order from Mr. John Leonhard Van Asten, of Rotterdam, to whom this said defendant believes the said George Michael Weitzius (alias Weiss) has paid seven hundred and fifty guilders, this defendant received of Messieurs Charles and Issac Behaghe at Frankfort, the like sum of seven hundred and fifty guilders of Holland’s currency for the use of the said congregations of the German Reformed Church of Philadelphia and Skippack, amounting to about one hundred and twelve pounds, ten shillings and one-half penny of the currency of this province of Pensilvania. And this defendant saith he also received for the use of the said congregations as follows: Of the Reformed Dutch congregation at Frankfort, forty guilders; of the Reformed French Church at Frankfort, twenty guilders; of the Reformed Low Dutch Church of Hanau, four guilders; amounting in the whole to seventy six Dutch guilders, or florins, of the value of about eleven pounds eleven shillings and eleven pence half-penny which together with the above sum of one hundred and twelve pounds ten shillings and one half-penny makes the sum of one hundred and twenty three pounds eighteen shillings Pensilvania currency.

And this defendant further saith that he hath received no further or other sum or sums of money for the use of the said congregations of Philadelphia and Skippack of any person or persons whatsoever; that the names of the congregations or churches who paid the same and the several sums by them paid is inserted in the collect-book above mentioned. And this defendant doth deny that he ever suggested that by trading to Germany he could improve the said money so committed to his care to the great advantage of the said congregations of Philadelphia and Skippack, or either of them,, or anything tending to that purpose. And this defendant further saith—that some small time before he received the said monies, he, together with the said George Michael Weitzius (alias Weiss) did consult and advise with Doctor Wilhelmus in the bill named about disposing of the same, and it was then proposed by the said George Michael Weitzius (alias Weiss) that it should be laid out in goods and merchandise which the ad. Doctor Wilhelmus approved of, and the sd. George Michael Weitzius (alias Weiss) directed this defendant to lay out what money should come to his hands in certain goods and merchandise, a particular whereof he delivered to this defendant in writing, intimating that it would be much more for the advantage of the sd. Congregation than to carry it over in specie. [so it was not his idea]

And this defendant saith that he, this defendant, did accordingly lay out and expend all the said money so by him received in purchasing the said goods pursuant to the said directions, which goods this defendant (being about to return to Philadelphia) caused to be shipped on board the ship called the Brittania Gallery, Michael Franklyn, master, then bound for Philadelphia, for the use and on the proper account and risk of the said congregations of Philada. And Skippack.

And this defendant further saith that at the time the said ship was about to sail the said Doctor Wilhelmus ordered and directed this defendant to go to the Synod for North and South Holland, held at Dordrecht, which this defendant accordingly did, being unwilling to omit anything that might tend to the interest or service of the said congregations of Philadelphia and Skippack, that this defendant returned with all possible expedition to Rotterdam. But (to this defendant’s great surprise) the said ship was sailed for England in order to be cleared of the custom house there, that she might lawfully proceed on her said voyage to Philadelphia, to the great damage of this defendant, his clothes, effects and provisions being on board; that the master of the said ship being unwilling to advance any money for the duty or customs of the goods so shipped for the use of the said congregations as aforesaid, left them in the custody of the collector of His Majesty’s customs at Cowes, in the Isle of Wight (where the said ship went to clear) as this defendant is informed by letters from Mr. John Hope, a merchant there; that this defendant arrived at Cowes in or about June in the year of our Lord 1732, on his voyage to Philadelphia, and then endeavored as much as in him lay to get the said goods with him. But before the defendant or the collector of customs could procure an account of what sum was due for customs and duties, the ship this defendant went in was ready to sail and he was forced to go away without them. But this defendant saith that before his departure from said island he left in the hands of the said Mr. John Hope (who is reputed an eminent merchant there) forty-nine pistols gold of the value about L68, 12s Pensilvania currency, on order to pay the duty, custom and freight of the said goods and to return the overplus (if any) to this defendant. And this defendant saith that some time in November last he received a letter from the said Mr. Hope signifying that the duty or custom of the said goods was paid and that he only waited an opportunity of shipping them to Philadelphia.[he was imprudent at best in missing the ship].

And this defendant saith that he hath been frequently requested by the complainants to pay them the said 2182 guilders and 76 guilders in the bill mentioned and this defendant refused so to do. But this defendant then offered to pay into the hands of the elders or church wardens of both the sd. Congregations of Phila. And Skippack, who this defendant apprehends, are the only persons who can give this defendant a legal discharge for the same, all sum or sums of money which on a fair account to be settled between them should be found due or in this defendant’s hands, for the use of the said congregations, reasonable deductions being made for the expense, time, and trouble of the aforesaid voyage, according to their agreement. And in order to make them easy was also willing at that time and offered them to take the above mentioned on this defendant’s own proper account and risk, and to allow them money in lieu thereof. And this defendant saith that some of the principal members of the said congregations thought this proposal very just, but the complainants rejected it and insisted very strenuously on this defendant’s paying them the whole two thousand one hundred and thirty-two guilders and seventy-six guilders in the bill mentioned, that this defendant declared he had never received so much. [they wanted double the amount he said was collected]

This defendant further saith that he was always willing to render a just and true account of all monies received by him for the use of the said congregations of Philada. and Skippack and to pay what shall be found in his hands on an account stated and reasonable deductions made for this defendant’s time and trouble and expense as aforesaid, and still is ready so to do as this honourable court shall direct, but humbly hopes that as the complainants have refused the fair and generous proposals of this defendant this defendant shall not now be compelled to take the said goods on his own account, they being shipped by the direction of the said Gorege Weitzius (alias Weiss) with approbation of the said Dr. Wilhelmus, for the proper account and risk of the said congregations of Philadelphia and Skippack. And this defendant saith that this defendant thought and was advised that it was not safe or agreeable to the trust in him reposed to pay what was in his hands to the complainants, they not having any right or authority to receive the same, and for that the same belonged as well to congregation of the German reformed church at Skippack as to the congregation of the German reformed church at Philadelphia, for whose joint use and benefit this defendant received the same. And this defendant doth aver it was so intended by the persons who paid the same.

And this defendant further saith that he is credibly informed and believes he is able to prove to this honorable court that the said complainants’ said bill of complaint is brought and this suit commenced and carried on without the consent and against the will of the elders or church wardens of the said German reformed church of Skippack and of the one-half of the elders or church wardens of the German reformed church of Philadelphia, and against the general consent of the members of both the said congregations, on purpose to vex and trouble this defendant and rather to put this defendant to charge and expense than for any equitable cause. And this defendant saith that he has been so far from injuring the said congregations that in all things he has constantly endeavored to promote their interest, and had advanced, lent and paid before his voyage to Holland about the sum of L 150 Pensilvania currency, in order to purchase some land and build a church for the use of the said congregations, which money remains unpaid with interest thereof to this day. [ie. more than the sum alleged collected].

And this defendant for their greater ease in repaying the same condescended to wait till the aforesaid monies so collected in Holland should arrive. And this defendant denies he now hath or hath had at any time since his return from Holland as aforesaid any design or intention to depart this province as in a petition preferred to this honorable court by the complainants has been falsely suggested. And this defendant doth deny all combination in the bill charged, without that any other matter or thing in the complaints’ said bill of complaint contained material or necessary for this defendant to make answer unto, and not herein and hereby sufficiently answered unto, confessed or avoided, traversed or denies, is true to the knowledge and belief of this defendant, all which matters and tings this defendant is ready to aver and prove as this Honourable court shall direct, and humbly prays to be hence dismissed with his reasonable costs and charges in this behalf most wrongfully sustained.
Thos. Hopkinson

[(1709-1751) 1st president American Philosophical Society, Founder U of Pennsylvania]

Quarto die Septembris, 1733

Coram THOS. LAWRENCE

The well connected Hopkinson was member of the Philosophical Society with Franklin and a Mason.

The Reformed Pastors: Boehm

The Reformed Pastors: Boehm

As the chief antagonist of Jacob Reiff and eventually his brothers over his defrocking Boehems letters are another chief informant of these matters.

Jacob Reiff (1698-1782) was called the Elder because he was sent to Holland with Weiss and was implicitly asked to act as one. This title has nothing to do with his son named Jacob Jr. (1734-1816). At 29, in 1727, this Jacob was 15 years the junior of Boehm the immigrant teacher who acted as pastor and was defrocked by Weiss who arrived that year. Reiff had grown up in Skippack with his brothers and sister, the son of his father who was respected as a charitable and honest man. The Reiffs were farmers and blacksmiths and implicitly educated people respected for their literacy as pioneers.

Why do nineteenth century German Reformed scholars continually repeat that Jacob Reiff refused to give an account of the funds since he does, first in his Defense, second, in the public meeting of 1734 and third, to Schlatter. What they mean is he would not give an account to the kangaroo court of Philadelphia Reformed elders who sought to impeach his honesty after they had ratified his actions and he had acted at their behest.
Boehm was one of many victims of these forces behind the fratricides of the Philadelphians of 1725 to 1750, but he had trouble keeping his own counsel. It is not out of the mouth of babes that Boehm constantly calls Jacob" the insolent Reiff" (447), " bold and impertinent" (410). He is not very suckling when he seeks "to silence the audacious Reiff" (270) in this conflict between the old and the new.

I follow Boehm,

I follow Weiss,

I'd follow Miller

But I won't follow Reiff.

(see "followers of Reiff" in Boehm's Letters, 273)

Boehm complains, "if the people rule, every vagabond may cause factions" (Letters, 332), pretty much the stance of the modern day Obama. Thus, Wilemmaus' letter (below) was instrumental in forging, no pun, what Mittelberger calls the "excessive," which we delight in as the fine freedom that increases appetite for more.

John Philip Boehm was aschoolmaster who emigrated to Philadelphia about 1720. It is thought that as early as 1723 he began to officiate as a reader in informal services at Skippack held in the Reiff homes, and about 1725 began to function as a pastor there. There is some doubt whether he himself would have called it a church, lacking as it did the trappings of ordained authority to important to Reformed hierarchy. Of course he knew the importance of ordained authority because he was himself the son of a Reformed pastor. He inherited his father's contentious nature. There were serious feuds with laymen, elders even, over preferences, rewards, priorities. Suits were filed, petitions made, angers aroused, reconciliations forsworn. As a schoolmaster of the Reformed Church at Worms and later Lambsheim (l708-l720) his duties included reading the Scripture during the service, posting the hymns, cutting the communion bread, but not administering the sacraments or baptisms. There being no such Reformed officials in Skippack however, things were "informal" for about five years, meaning he did all that and more, that is until the arrival of Weiss in 1727.

Remember, this small group of people, 50 to 100, met in homes, New Testament style, but unlike the NT, could not select a member to lead them (as the Mennonites did). This of course was because they were Reformed, hence structured in a certain way, but as we might put it, unable to provide for the new because of the old. Boehm knew this law as well as anyone, having served as church adjunct and schoolmaster in Holland and as the son of the pastor. The point here is that before he ever set foot in the baptismal he knew the rules and that he had a definite adversarial bent. He woke up in the new world and found himself old.

He says they begged him with tears to assume the pastor's role, but when the majority told him to leave he wanted to stay. Naturally enough (for he was later ordained and founded a number of Reformed churches) he was most attached to the Skippack church, his first love. But the illegal minister, once ordained, became a legalist and insisted upon his own rights as he had in Holland. Why not just walk away and be a farmer, which he also was, or pastor, since he was ordained, at other churches? Why sustain a dissension, especially considering the eminent advice Muhlenberg had for Pastor Voigt that, "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).

Your Reiff Church Pastors

When John Peter Miller exited the Reformed ministry to go with the Ephrata Dunkards in the most dramatic manner, by burning their holy books, he became a radical player in later Ephrata events and the American revolution. When Weiss went back to Holland in the spring of 1730 Boehm thought this absence might result in his reinstatement. But Miller, he complained to the New York pastors on November 15, 1730, had been installed in Weiss's place instead of himself.

Boehm
Weiss
John Peter Miller--pastor from 1730 to 1731
John Bartholomew Rieger--pastor from 1731 to 1734
John Henry Goetschy--pastor from 1735 to 1740
Peter Henry Dorsius--pastor from 1737 to 1743

Buchstaben the kirkendief

The Letter--the letter kills but the spirit brings life. Stabbed in the back by a book, that is,
THE LETTER Faileth--"If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." I Timothy 5.

The Money-- Catch the kirkendief. Jacob's Party

There are two possible contradictions in Jacob Reiff's Defense. First, whose idea really was it that the money should be "laid out in goods" (Dubbs, 64)? Reiff says that it was "proposed by the said George Michael Weitzius (alias Weiss) that it should be laid out in goods and merchandise" and that this "Doctor Wilhelmus approved of."

Reiff says further that Weiss "directed this defendant to lay out what money should come to his hands in certain goods and merchandise, a particular whereof he delivered to this defendant in writing, intimating that it would be much more for the advantage of the sd. Congregation that to carry it over in specie."

But how that reconciles with the letter he speaks of when making the charge of kirkendief against Diemer, et. al. Boehm may well have mistaken, for he says that Reiff said "if they had not written to me, I would not have done it" (Letters, 236). Then Reiff showed a letter which the Philadelphia elders had sent to him in Holland which, after taking the authority from Weiss (which he had received from the whole congregation and transfrering to it Jacob Reiff," he acted accordinglyt.

So whose idea was it to turn the money into goods? Diemer's, Weiss? The tales conflict, but there is no doubting that these suggestions were made only because in their experience they knew that JR was an experienced trader and had already changed money to goods on the voyage, "to get his relatives" from which he had just returned.

Secondly, what was JR's motive to take this second trip? He says that some of the collected funds were to have been paid him for the land and the church building, whose costs he had advanced. Did he go to collect the money so he could pay himself?

He says that he had "advanced, lent and paid before his voyage to Holland about the sum of L 150 Penisilvania currency, in order to purchase some land and build a church for the use of the said congregations, which money remains unpaid with the interest thereof to this day. And this defendant for their greater ease in repaying the same condescended to wait till the aforesaid monies so collected in Holland should arrive." He says this to evidence that" he has been so far from injuring the said congregations that in all things he has constantly endeavored to promote their interest."

Why does Boehm think he is going to get any of the money?

Charges:
l. He forged the letter.
2.He stole the money.
3. He founded and operated a conspiratorial party.
4. He was insolent.
5. He is an embarrassment to the founding.
6. He is Weis's best friend. The "leading layman" (Gladfelter 381.
7). He refused to give an account. This repeats what his accusers say only.

Defenses:
l. Muhlenberg's testimonial
2. His own confession
3.His eventual settlement and exoneration
4. Is he a purveyor of church freedom (in the forgery)?
5.Is he the sport of the vexatious Philadephila cabal?
6.The evidence of a frame-up and a cover up.
Gladfelter: "the unhappy, long-drawn-out affair in which he was the central figure" (117).

Boehm
In a way you have to sympathize with simplified Boehm. Underneath all his conflict with Reiff he only wanted to preach in the Reiff Church. Even in 1744 in his Report to the Synod he says "I still hope that when Reiff has once been taken to account for the collected money, he will have to give up the church which stands upon his property" (Letters, 411). It makes you wonder when he wrote this, since that Building was removed in 1743.
And why do the Reformed historians not suggest that his too rash personality was the source of most of his trouble. There were few that he could get along with for long, excluding the steadfast William Dewees. Boehm had it out with everyone else if he couldn't get his way, including every one of the Reformed pastors. He had a contentious spirit. Like ourselves, he was his own worst enemy.

Certainly his compulsive, defensive personality and the validation he sought from the Holland synods was entirely the motive for most of the letters he sent, which work out to be a treasure trove of unparalleled merit as a record of that time. His suffering is our reward, but like any tortured unfortunate who can't get respect, we must judge his antagonisms in their context, not take them as gospel truth as does the Rev. William J. Hinke, Ph.D., D.D, his biographer and German Reformed apologist.

If Boehm is his own worst enemy his biographer, Hinke is his second, for he magnifies the adversarial tone of Boehm's troubles by making everybody choose up sides: Wentz was "an adherent " of Weiss, Lefeber "sided" with Weiss, Schuler was one of the "officers of Boehm's congregation" (25,26). The congregations continually belong to Boehm, again and again, "Boehm's congregation," "Boehm's congregations," until we are surprised not to read 'upon this Boehm I will build my church." If we think at all that leaders should set the tone for followers then Boehm and the Reformed scholars got exactly what they exemplified: 'I follow Paul, I follow Apollos, I follow Cephas, I follow Christ." I follow Boehm, I follow Weiss.

Boehm wants us to believe they are also saying, I follow Reiff. But Reiff hated it and there is no record subsequently that he ever went to church again. Some think, Harry Reiff included, that he became a Mennonite, which in the tone of the current schism between the Reformed/Lutheran scholars and the “sectarians” in Pennsylvania who hold each other at arm’s length is further contention. In Boehm we find a conflicted soul not in a situation wholly of his own making whose every instinct is to seek redress when wronged, and with it solace and support from hierarchy.

The two men, Boehm and Reiff, differ as significantly as do their fathers. Throughout his life, Boehm's father, Phillip Ludwig Boehm (l646-l726), pastor at Hochstadt, was vexed with quarrels and troubles, prosecuted for poaching, reprimanded and suspended for domestic troubles and complaints by his congregation and rash speaking. Hans George Reiff (1659-1726) was a smith, farmer, and landowner , a man of application and therefore wealth who was likewise educated. While he was of the Reformed church he apparently helped in some way to build the Salford Mennonite Meetinghouse where he is likewise buried. When we speak of their sons we can see Boehm has no immediate new world root and struggled continuously, while Jacob Reiff, confident, well respected and self assured in his demeanor came of a well established and respected family.

Of Weiss, see Penn Germania of Gideon Moor, his slave

Reopened Inquest in the Matter of Jacob Reiff and the first Reformed Church of Philadelphia

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)."

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.

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.

Apology, Confession, Remorse and Reparation in Peace Reconciliation of the Reformed, the Lutherans and Mennonites
You would think after all this we could be done and leave history to take its rest but not so, for the issue of Jacob the Elder has been mightily revived in a repreeentation of the noteed Mennonite author who uses Jacob, if anonymounsly, as a justification of amends with the Dutch Reformed, who apologized at last for their undoings of the old world.

Jacob Keim Dawty, 1753

Reparation

I gave $33,000 in facetious reparation to the Reformed Church for claimed and perceived injustices my ancestor Jacob the Elder is supposed to have committed in his alms gathering in Holland c. 1730, and in his demolition of that first Reformed church building on his land. No set figure was in mind but when that total accured, to put away your numerologies, it just happened.

We had already given several times that to the lesser purposes of the charismatic octopus. Latterly the Mennonites themselves got in on it too and we have made the Christmas list.

My mother always insisted I didn't know the value of money. I would win big at poker in those days of family gathering, take double handfuls of change out side and throw them up in the air to scatter the grass. Kids in the morning thought it had rained. I started throwing money on the ground at the feet of fellow tourists in Britain among the standing stones because they seemed to disrespect them. Later on I just wrote stories about such people, some in The JFK Order. The claims and the counter claims with their suits and counter suits concerning Jacob are available in these blogs, but when I donated the Reformed funds in 10K installments it was under my breath that they would serve to alleviate this debt. So the Christian Reformed Church school stands in beneficiary for the Reformed Churches of Skippack and Philadelphia. Apologies also to The Elder for this act since he never allowed any of the kierkendief alleged. But you will see below how Jacob Reiff did his own reparation by being made to offer a bridge between opposing parties.

Confession

When Lutherans, the politicians anyway, Do Lutherans Really "Condemn the Anabaptists"?, decided to heal "the breaches of Christian unity that occurred in the sixteenth century... the breach Lutherans have suffered with--and to some extent inflicted upon--the Anabaptists and their heirs [that] was in fact already a reality before the Reformers lived through the breakdown of conversations with the Roman Catholic Church in the middle of the sixteenth century." This breakdown of conversations means water tortures, the breach was routing to prison in the dead of night whole families, which rhetorical duplicity in attempting to exculpate themselves and scapegoat Catholics is as reformed as all failures to communicate. This notable euphemism of itself, that Lutherans have suffered, conjures neatly as well as the reverse case, that it was already a reality before the Reformers, excuses their culpability. Adherents of the Augsburg Confession were at the center of these interrogations and tortures of women and children.

The Lutheran World Federation along with the Vatican's PCPCU Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity: said in October 1999, "with one mind we declare that, according to our insight into the life and teaching of the Mennonite congregations, the condemnations of the CA no longer apply.

Mennonite "renunciation of force" rejected these secular churches and their use of government enforcement.

If Mennonites along with making peace with the Adversary make peace with that world such a pact spells their dissolution after 500 years, which is what the 16th century Lutherans wanted. Even at the reconciliation party Larry Miller, secretary general of the Mennonite World Conference said, "We still remember being a prosecuted minority," a huge understatement given that the Mennonist Bloody Book says that without persecution their faith would wane, “if you then find, that the time of freedom has given liberty and room to your lusts, persecute yourself, crucify and put yourself to death, and offer up soul and body to God.” (Bloody Book 361, "Persecute Yourself").

Mennonites taught their young to read the Bloody Book of Martyrs "to remind them of the faith and steadfastness of their fathers (Strassburger Genealogy 408f).

Mennonites and Lutherans in the 21st Century: A Journey in Reconciliation is an ongoing process as of November 2018.

A Response to Will - The Difference Between an Apology and a Confession #MWCMM

Jacob Reiff the Elder gets to play a part in this "reconcilation" thats to Harvard's John Ruth who makes him a Lutheran for his own purposes. But The Elder was explicitly Reformed with much documentation (Harry Reiff thinks him a Mennonite in the end). The First Reformed Church in Philadelphia met in his home, but as a pawn in the reconciliation of modern Lutheran and Mennonite, he is not explicitly named. This makes it easier to fool, after all, didn't the lion get substituted with the wolf. The pride of the Harvard Mennonite PhD being the ultimate authority of current Mennonity, except if we examine his sources, he was drafted to give a reply to the Lutherans.

Lutheran ecumenists tired of their bloody past apologized to the nearest Mennonite. Chief politician John Ruth drafted the Mennonite response (Lutherans and Mennonites move toward right relationships). He found Jacob Reiff's grave, dug it up and reburied him as a symbol of unity. amity. Jacob Reiff, neither Lutheran nor Anabaptist finally did some good for the Reformed. That the symbol of amity was false in its particulrs
characterizes the new accord.

They like to call it subconscious when the deep structure betrays the surface. Calling Jacob a Lutheran anonymously and putting him under the authority of Muhlenberg but suppressing his name so no one would catch him in the act, can be said to be well meaning even if forged. Who doesn't want to unite with their executioner? If moving the boundary stones in the 21st century is fair play everything of the past can be denied, included what people believe about themselves. If one proposition of Counterfeit civilization immediately replaces another, equally false, and contradicting it, that is to gloss over by the prejudiced selection and randomize by abstraction and anonymity.

There is no contrition in the Lutheran apologies, rather there are rationalizations. The equivocating language makes the apology suspicious of itself. That they "suffered" a breach instead of a ravage, is as bad as that only "to some extent" were their water tortures inflicted on people they drowned in a bag. Over and over again there had been a "breakdown of conversations" with the Catholics. This language of a failure to communicate from Paul Newman in Cool Hand Luke is beyond precious. But to invoke in this false healing and reconciliation the name of someone who heaped contempt on them all, but kept it largely to himself, and to cite him anonymously, which must be the case lest the duplicity be exposed, fits the apology case. So Jacob Reiff, neither Lutheran nor Mennonite, but Reformed, is chosen by Mennonite John Ruth to bridge the reconcilation of Lutherans and Mennonites in false apology, but his exact identity is held back, if it wasn't the spurious would be obvious. Ruth's closing is mostly fictional.

"In closing, let me recall from those unusual years an inspiring incident linking our two fellowships. Even after Muhlenberg had a beautiful new church built at Trappe, he allowed one of his members, who had been living among the Mennonites of Skippack, [you should say the reverse, Jacob Reiff's father's land, Hans George, was the early boundary reference for original deed of Michael Ziegler's land “beginning at a corner of Hans George Reiff’s land” (Strassburger, 419) who came to Germantown in 1709 (Alderfer, Several Documents, 28). So who lived among who?] to bury his aged mother’s body in the graveyard of the Mennonite congregation. Of course the service [see Two Documentary Sources for the Funeral of Anna Reiff, 1753] would be conducted by the Lutheran pastor, who was surely the best preacher of the gospel in the region:

[Caution. There is no know doc for any of what follows]

The day being very hot, Muhlenberg proposed to preach under a large tree. He was surprised [? fictional drama.] that the Mennonite leaders present urged him instead to come into what he called their “roomy” meetinghouse for the service. Hesitantly but respectfully accepting this invitation, Muhlenberg found himself nevertheless cautioned at the meetinghouse door by an elderly Mennonite minister, who hoped that the Lutheran pastor would include in his service “no strange ceremonies.” How typically and cautiously Mennonite! Yet, after the service came another surprise, when the same old man thanked Muhlenberg with tears for “sounding the Gospel” in their meetinghouse. This morning, in a gesture unimaginable for my Mennonite ancestors, you, our Lutheran friends, are once again holding a service in one of our roomiest houses of worship."

Jacob Reiff

Ruth does not credit Reiff probably because of his own animus for Reiffs, who were never manageable at all. Jacob Reiff, who took two voyages back to Holland and Germany around the 1727-30, and who spoke English and represented the colonial government even as a young man was also both a founder and destroyer of the first Reformed Church, which reasons need not delay us here. This resulted in his being sued in a case of kierkenthief that lasted more than a decade. He was called a kierkenthief, and was continually castigated by the principal Reformed minister Boehme, along with his entire family. The Reiff family enters the picture because they were all highly defined individuals, what the religious seem to call "lawless," but the tongue tells the tale of its own self.

Conrad Reiff has received his due, Peter Reiff less so but the only regular among them was their brother George who died prematurely and childless. Jacob lived long enough and well enough to be an obvious friend of Muhlenberg who he must have known after Muhlenberg's arrival in 1742, when he was twelve years old than Muhlenberg, but the Reiffs had been farmers and blacksmiths established before 1717. The father Hans George might make pretext for making Jacob a Mennonite, for the Hans George Reiffs lived next to their cousin Hans Reiff, a Mennonite. Neighbors on the boundary of Reiff's property in Salford relied on each other to the point that Hans George Reiff was asked to sign as a witness to the Mennonite trust. His wife, the widow whose burial is in question, gave such an early donation to the Skippack Alms Book that it is on the first page. That she was buried in the Mennonite graveyard after a large gift to build the Mennonite meetinghouse, does not obviate that she was herself evidently the daughter of a Reformed church minion in Holland.

When Muhlenberg spoke at her funeral at the behest of her son Jacob it was the greatest gathering the area had seen, so much so that Gottlieb Mittelberger used it as an example of a funeral in his Journey to Pennsylvania, though, also in the anonymous fashion. Muhlenberg's affirmation of Jacob's character in his Journals is a political statement as well as sincere, for Jacob Reiff the Elder was a man of distinction and character who appealed to Muhlenberg who was one himself. There is never however one reference that Jacob was his parishioner and a Lutheran.

Sweeping under the rug all difference and variety to make unity and reconciliation where there is none prepares, rhetorically at least, for the loss of gender, the loss of history, language, everything that makes us interesting, which is then substituted for life extension, super powers, acceptance by the collective.

We are so rich in the language of apology to suggest that if it is in language it is false, which becomes more and more true since the fallen angels also wanted Enoch to apologize to the Eternal Father for them. Such conveyances come up in Charlie Rose apologizing for imposing himself naked upon his female assistants, he thought he was too beautiful to resist, like Lucifer, or George Bush senior patting little tushes from his wheel chair as if he thought he was the Pope of Uncleanness, as if his beauty was irresistible. They apologize in the hope that they can stay in power. The whole apology scam began decades ago when renegade daughters wanted their fathers and mothers to apologize for giving them birth, for blessing their childhoods with light. Dustin Hoffman's apology was it was "the things we do between takes." Kevin Spacey was, "I'm sorry, so so sorry" like a line out of Portrait of the Artist, "apologize, apologize or the eagle will come and pull out your eyes."

Bad as apology is, no apology is worse? No admission of wrong, no acknowledgment of the victim? Our need to show how labored we are with the product of our conditioning. In the work of Hegel you can literally apologize for anything, mining corps for yellow cake pollution of the badlands, oppressing native peoples everywhere, Canada selling their children in the sex trade, to avoid the consequence of their actions. They apologize with the hope they can do it again. Hey, don't they believe Charlie Manson will get another chance? Reincarnation is the biggest fraud of all in the apology scheme, that if we torture you you will change your ways or at least pay back every drop of blood you spilled, every word you spoke. And the thoughts, what about the thoughts? Nobody knows. All this comes just in time for the denouement. The higher they reach they more they let go their lusts. You'd think leaders, politicians, movie stars, pastors, teachers would know that.

The inherent contradiction in the Lutheran/Mennonite Fraud Reconciliation is a chapter in the Fall of Evangelicalism, a social political act that deems "apology" complicit with the Vatican politics of religion and state. But falsely skewing the facts to bridge Lutherans and Mennonites of 18th century Skippack with someone who was neither Lutheran nor Mennonite is a close second. Third, the continuing fabrication of documents and relationships regarding Jacob Reiff and that patrilineage in general continue the coverup.

This is the background that occurs in the latest foray of the Elder Jacob who has been hoisted to justify the rapprochement of Lutherans and Mennonites at the 450th anniversary of their discord.

All the facts however are in doubt in John L. Ruth's 'linking our two fellowships." symbol of reconciliation of Lutheran and Mennonite. As a Harvard PhD and professor of English among Mennonites Mr. Ruth's historical works are encyclopedic. Of course, reconciliation is as major a Mennonite belief as one could wish, so in this plethora of apology for Lutheran participation in that past bloodthirsty time, Mr. Ruth was invited to represent the Mennonites before the Lutherans and to receive, as it were, The Apology. In this context he delivered up our grandfather Jacob Reiff the Elder much as Mittelberger delivered up Jacob's brother Conrad Reiff, The Journey to Pennsylvania (1756) and Outlaw Outtakes on Conrad Reiff, Oley and the Reiff Brothers of Schuippach, but however by name, because the Reiffs are a little outre among Mennonists. Jacob's anonymity therefore was able to hold the graft of Ruth's revisions to the account of events in Skippack following Muhlenberg's arrival. This fictionalization is entertaining. Compare the statement that Anna Reiff wrote in English from Dotterer, via...Mary Jane Hershey.

For Jacob the Elder to play a part in this fractious contention after 500 years is beyond all expectation even if his citation is anonymous in the resolution of Lutherans and Mennonites. Embroiled as he was in controversy in his own Reformed denomination it only adds to the flavor of his life and its meaning. He draw animosity from religious authorities much as did his brother Conrad with the New Born cult in Oley in 1730. That their father was a notable man of peace held in respect with many in 1725 partly enabled the extensive contacts his sons had with other cults and religions. These matters serve as a background to their lives which we know because of the controversy it stirred. Harry Reiff thinks him a Mennonite. John Ruth thinks him a Lutheran for his own purposes. He was explicitly Reformed. But we have to face up to counterfeit civilization and its aims to legitimatize any figure being taken for any purpose to form a derivative of any reason. One false proposition therein is immediately replaced by another equally false, and contradicting it, which is glossed over by the selected details and then randomized to abstraction and anonymity, sold like any mortgage fund, hence even though Jacob the Elder becomes a pawn in the reconciliation of Luther and Mennonite, he is not named as such, the unkindest cut of all, to leave him there without clothes or even a stone to identify him. So here we come with our barrow again to dig up the appurtenances.

This impacts the integrity of John Ruth, pride of the Mennonite and Harvard PhD, really the ultimate authority and head of much current Mennonity. His books are well known and indispensable. His life within the community where he was born and grew up to serve is without question whereas my own Mennonity has nothing but question. We are poles apart on a continuum that recognizes some affinity too. I never got to be a Mennonite for reasons stated elsewhere. In any case when the Lutheran ecumenists tired of their bloody past to the point of rejecting it they approached the whole Mennonite establishment. John Ruth's statement and his implication of Jacob Reiff as a symbol of unity and amity between Lutheran and Mennonity is Ruth's own but stands for the greater communities. That the symbol is completely false, an entire fiction, thus stands as Ruth's own judgment of the case. They like to call it subconscious betrayal when the deep structure betrays the surface. In this case calling Jacob a Lutheran, putting him under the authority of Muhlenberg and then suppressing his name to make him a general representative of a fabricated point of view, a unity, when he spectacularly is not, few will recognize and be able to find out the forgery. Or you can say Ruth is well meaning in his insight, and that the particulars if not true in this case are true in some other, moving all the boundary stones of reason in one fell swoop. For the sake of turnabout is fair play I want to make John Ruth's fabrication a symbol of the moving of stones that brings the 21st century to deny absolutely everything people ever believed about themselves and justifying it on the base of the same skewed facts contradiction and mis-selections.

Ruth may not credit Reiff because of his own animus of these intractable folk of the 18th century. One later malfactor Reiff in Lancaster of 1842 he does identify either, for the lengthy consideration is entirely omitted in the index, even if a little poking around reveals Abraham Reiff a minister in Groffdale about 1780 (1161). Ruth uses these Reiffs to urge his cases of Mennonite discipline, congregation vs. Bishop, requirements of fellowship. Under the heading Child Abuse at Groffdale he cites a "wealthy Earl Township couple by the name of Reiff" (512), "the affluent Reiffs" to rhetorically further the lack of sympathy, guilt by Protestant ethic, for "the Reiffs were mistreating" their servant girl. He offers this following a parenthesis where another orphan boy's mother made pregnant by U. S. Senator James Buchanan died after "slitting her throat in a cornfield" (512). Guilt by parenthetical association? These Reiffs' spiritual status was subjected to written investigation by Jacob Stauffer that remains in the Geschicht-Buchlein translated as A Chronicle or History Booklet about the So-called Mennonite Church (Ruth 1279). Does one take the counsel of the congregation or shall we take it on ourselves and do as the Word says?" (The Earth is the Lord's, 514)

Can you just take somebody and make him a parishioner of the Lutherans and bury him in the Mennonite cemetery as a Mennonite to make him a symbol of reconstructed amity between L and M justifying their refellowshipping each other, even if it is all based on a lie?-- The whole intent is the removal of boundary stones, don't say man, don't say B.C. Don't say victim, oppressor, resolve contradiction into unity, bring order out of chaos.

They were never manageable at all. Jacob, who took two voyages back to Holland and Germany around 1727-30, and who spoke English and represented the colonial government even as a young man, was also a founder and destroyer of the first Reformed Church, of which the reasons need not delay us here. This resulted in his being defamed and sued in a case that lasted more than a decade 1732-1749, where he was called a kierkenthief, church robber, Complaint 1732 and Answer,
and was continually castigated by the principal Reformed minister Boehme, along with his entire family. His family seems to enter the picture because they were all individuals and radicals, Conrad Reiff has received his due notice. Peter Reiff less so but perhaps all them were radicals. The only regular was Hans but he died prematurely and childless. Jacob lived long enough and well enough to be an obvious friend of Muhlenberg who he must have known after Muhlenberg's arrival in 1742, but the Reiffs had been farmers and blacksmiths well established in 1717. The father, Hans George, draws the Mennonite purpose about the family for living next to his cousin Hans Reiff a Mennonity and Michael Ziegler, a Mennonite minister. These neighbors on the boundary of his property in Salford relied on each other to the point that Hans George was asked to sign as witnesses of the Mennonite Trust of 1725, "Hans George Reiff, a member of the German Reformed Church, who wrote a neat signature, and Antonius Heilman, a Lutheran living at the Trappe."
His wife Anna gave early donations to the Alms Book and was buried in the Mennonite graveyard, but she was speculatively the daughter of a Reformed church minion in Holland. When Muhlenberg spoke at her funeral, the greatest gathering the area had seen, so much so that Gottlieb Mittelberger used it as an example in his Journey to Pennsylvania, though, also fashionably, anonymously, Muhlenberg's affirmation of Jacob's character was also a political statement as well as sincere, for Jacob Reiff was a man of distinction and character that appealed to Muhlenberg who was one himself. There is never however one reference that Jacob was his parishioner.

So what's the problem? The sweeping under the rug of all difference and variety to make unity and reconciliation where there is none. What's the ultimate result, The preparation of the loss of gender, the loss of history, language, everything that makes us interesting for the substitute of life extension, super powers, acceptance by the collective.

The brand of the Bernese Bear on the back of Henry Funck's grandfather of 1671 is not absorbed into the skin. The scar remains.

The oppressor who turned the bear into its slave and branded the dissident with its logo, one enslaved upon another, the same burgers who beat the tortures of the Bloody Book into the blood that ran with their horrors into the bear pit of Bern is our historical case of the discord between the Lutheran and Mennonite. It was open warfare against the Mennonite. These days the Bärengraben is a surveillance graben nicely predicting zoos of new age underground and camps served by boxcars that governments will some day apologize for. When, after four centuries Lutherans reconcile with Mennonites 500 years after bloody persecution and the oppressor and chief accuser want to be forgiven, forgiveness is a sort of timing to serve the greater purpose of dissolving all boundaries. Canada asked forgiveness from its natives (2008), South Africa did of its. The Amish asked the Conestoga people and to Israel for the holocaust. We have entered the era of the History of Apologies. Spain, Netherlands, the Pope join in. When they're not apologizing they're still accusing. The Pope will put you jail for doubting global warming, but not for killing the Pacific with Fukushima, for building a wall to preserve the integrity of a nation, but not for the one around Vatican City hiding pedophiles. Apologies are a technique of the left so prevalent not a day goes by that Caucasoids must apologize for being white, men for being of a particular gender, the Indians had 5!, parents must apologize to their children, presidents to everyone who is offended by law. Apologizers for past murders reveal some scheme in the present, some misdirection to divert attention from even worse, like the doctrine of Wm. Burrough's Nova, that each 'Anthropocene' epoch engineers one crisis after another TO SUBVERT ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE FACT, always seeking to create as many insoluble conflicts as possible and to always aggravate the existing ones (53). Imagine if Angela Merkel apologizes for the destruction of Germany when replacement immigrants outnumber German men 20-45 by 2026. Imagine the apologies of government science after half the English have cancer, as predicted, and 1 of 3 children is autistic, caused by the fluoride added to water, aluminum added to air, radiation added to sea. Supposing the receivers of these apologies are incredulous, if they survive, but what can't be set right? The apologies for 6000 years of tyranny? Answer, everything. Nothing. Satan apologizes for deviousness to deceive the more. If you feel the tension between the two, the accuser repenting and the victim disbelieving, that is because in the age of patch up, as if the many generations before those rabid words and heinous acts never happened, a psychic verbal propranalol defamiliarizes reality. The whole intent of the removal of boundary stones, don't say man, don't say B.C. don't say victim, oppressor, is to resolve contradiction into unity, bring order out of chaos.

"It is the doctrinal content of the Confession that is binding for Lutherans today, and that historical judgments contained in the Confession are relative and fallible, the essay suggests the possibility that the condemnations of Anabaptists in the Augsburg Confession do not apply to Mennonites participating in these dialogues. " DAVID G. TRUEMPER

undoing of the breaches of Christian unity that occurred in the sixteenth century--any undoing of the breeches will reveal the whole hidey mess, keep it covered
we who were at the center of the western church's sixteenth-century fractures bear central responsibility for seeking healing and reconciliation
courage and evangelical commitment demonstrated by the Mennonite dialogue
In 1980 "Mennonites in Germany had been invited to join a 450th anniversary remembrance of the great Lutheran Augsburg Confession of faith...Mennonites replied that our spiritual forebears, the Anabaptists, had been scathingly denounced Confession.Why would we be asked to participate in celebrating our own condemnation?"
Lutherans are generally afflicted with a loss of their zeal, seek ot reconcile with conversations as we have been in carrying on the now forty-six year old conversations with the Roman Catholic Church.
A loss of all cesrtitude, mark of the beast requires all submission
How comfortable can you feel that that the reigning Pontiff in the Vatican is to be labeled "Antichrist is not inerrant or a binding symbol as the Confession says? so they reduced their heinous acts to symbols
"authority of the Lutheran symbolical writings" -
"What did it mean to say that then?" all nonsense, it's what they did, that never ceases to exist. "
There are in fact relatively few condemnations of Anabaptists in the Augsburg Confession. Such condemnations appear explicitly in articles V, IX, XII, XVI, XVII; and implicitly in articles X and XXIV. Only seven! reading of the condemnations
Luther:
In 1528 he wrote, "I think it is not right, and I am genuinely sorry that such people are so gruesomely murdered, burned, and cruelly assassinated.
In his May 6, 2011 Address at the Lutheran Synod at Franconia Mennonite Church Mr. Ruth reviews the Mennonites killed for their faith, "some days there were two, four or ten executions" (4).

"The Augsburg Confession whose effect we may recall this morning. The man

who wrote it, in defense of the Lutheran Princes before the Emperor, called the Anabaptists “a fiendish” and “horrible devilish sect,” teaching “only revolt, theft and murder, besides immorality and adultery.” They were to be wiped out, and executed according to Leviticus 24, which commanded Israel to stone blasphemers to death."

The Lutheran-Mennonite International Study Commission said that Lutherans had invited the Mennonites to celebrate their own condemnation, arguing with them especially about adult and infant baptism, which was the crux of centuries long ago, as if they were feeling defensive:

" it seemed strange that the Mennonites wanted to maintain the name “Anabaptist,” especially since, in their view, it is not “re-baptizing” (“ana” means “again” in Greek) but baptizing in the first place"

"It appears that Lutherans were directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of at least one hundred Anabaptists. (Although figures are hard to establish with absolute certainty, it seems that around 2,500 Anabaptists were executed for religious “crimes.”) And this injustice was preserved in Mennonite memory—especially in a big book called Martyrs Mirror, which details the stories of Anabaptists who suffered and died for their faith, though it rarely specifies whether the persecutor was Lutheran, Reformed, Catholic, or something else—while most Lutherans forgot all about it.

"In the end, a sizable number of Anabaptists was put to death in Lutheran territories and with the endorsement of Lutheran theologians."

Is the past like a broken chair to be repaired and reused? Not at all. First because the skills to fix the chair only exist in the hands of specialists which do an ordinary broken chair and its owner no good, but second because nobody wants the old chair anyway when they can get a new one from IKEA. So we have a new past which has nothing in it because we didn't want the old one anyway and if we did it would only be owned by specialists.

The apologies are a sham.

Where is the oppressor to gain expiation? Happily a mechanism already in place, made by the same oppressor only needs to go visit the owl of Bohemian Grove owl to assuage their marred past and its guilt, not seek forgiveness. Sanding the top of the old desk up to remove the confessor "error" generations later to assuage their guilt, seeking to apologize they continue to defame those they in their ancestors killed. It's unforgivable and they have to live with it throughout all time. There is no forgiveness of political acts, subversion, gulags, desaparecidos, tortures, murders. There is self sacrifice for a life time. Torture is a political act inflicted on nations for their own benefit. Unless you stand up and repudiate these acts, as Trump did the invasion of Iraq, you are implicated in the guilt and apology. The best lack all conviction however they apologize. Joyce's Stephen Dedalus is prophetic, apologize, apologize. You're made to apologize because it makes you one of the weak, the will-less mind-dulled manacles. You 're then made to forgive on the other side of the forced conclusion of Hegel.

There are literally 360 points of view of a thing in two dimensions, more in 3D and in 4, the revelation of time. Ask the civilizations and conquerors of Jerusalem whose similarities and differences are tempted with the notion that one of them is right, so history devolves into a collective state, called the truth, the fact with differences removed. These points of view are true only for the speaker of the moment. Each documentation of fact, all 360 degrees of reality and every sheet of ininterpretation in the ream of 500 in a pack for argument's sake and for scale might be reduced to quadrants. Merely identifying four quadrants is a great achievement in interpreting reality, including as it does opposites and complements. We are tempted to substitute an onion and its many skins for this paper, but in order to be true to the mind of the historical character, we must assume he is like ourselves, vexed and suited with packaging which does not reveal the real thoughts even to himself, or if he does it is in the night thought not remembered in the day, even while the fact circles in the heavens of his own mind. That the mind is a heaven self contained and populated with thoughts as if they were angels is surely the working assumption of every intellect. So the dawn or the night is given, but not the hidden reaches below. We know this as we know ourselves. Amazed, dismayed at the mixture in any character, we are all (un)comfortable in these contradictions of ourselves and our subjects as we design them, but it is amusing, if not good, to read the opposites and tangents.

Cited
John L. Ruth. The Earth Is the Lord's: A narrative History of the Lancaster Mennonite Conference. 2001.
Truemper, David G. The Role and Authority of the Lutheran Confessional Writings: Do Lutherans Really "Condemn the Anabaptists"?

By .

"esteemed first of all Jacob Reiff was not a Lutheran or a Mennonite. Second the relation he had with Muhlenberg was as a neighbor and of mutual respect among leaders of the community, as his father had with Hans Reiff

Can you just take somebody and make him a parishioner of the Lutherans and bury him in the Mennonite cemetery as a Mennonite justifying their refellowshipping each other, even if it is all based on a lie?

seeTHE SCRIBBLER: Amish ask for forgiveness from Native Americans

The high cost of forgiveness that even in the apology and its acceptance you will be used. Politics as usual full of titles of respect, esteemed

Bits and Pieces

The reference to Jacob owning slaves needs to be examined for he is not a slave holder in the reference to Henry Pawling and slaves- “Frederick Conrad’s Docket includes the entry that on August 10, 1792, “Negro Phillis, aged about one year and eleven months, a child abandoned by her late master, Joseph Pawling, dec’d, was bound by Jacob Horning and Jacob Reiff, Overseers of the Poor of Perkiomen, to Lewis Truckenmiller, his heirs and assignees, for the term of sixteen years, to be instructed in housekeeping and be taught to read intelligibly and have customary freedom due.

[It is obvious the Skippack Reformed Church was independent and formed on an independent not a hierarchical basis, which makes the letter of special significance. It gives this freedom to congregations and if it is a forgery of Jacob Reiff's, as they alleged then, then allow with the blame of the offender the praise of a philosopher, for it was a true statement of the time.]

[Speaking of those pastors of the first Reformed Church in Pennsylvania, Boehm and Weiss, Sachse observes that it is "a strange coincidence that both Boehm and Baumann came to Pennsylvania about the same time from Lambsheim, in the Palatinate" (The German Sectarians, I, 157). Five years separated them. Hinke has Baumann arriving in Philadelphia in 1718, Sachse in 1719, but Pendleton (176) cites land office records that show Baumann already residing in the Oley Valley in 1714. Since Baumann had left Lambsheim in 1714 and Boehm did not resign his position as schoolmaster in Worms until November 22, 1715 (Hinke, 15) their paths did not cross in Lambsheim and at least his one indignity can be spared Mr. Boehm.]

If it is wondered why the Newborn sect rejected the Bible and its teachings, the text recorded above by Spangenberg (6) should be noted, that is, I John 1.8: "if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."

Conrad Reiff

Conrad Reiff in the Journey to Pennsylvania (1696 -1777, )

Conrad Reiff in the Journey to Pennsylvania (1696 -1777, )

This is an alternate draft of the article that appeared in the Berks County Historical Review. The second half of this article continues here.

"Journey" in German is reise, which becomes
Reife from the old type convention substituting
f for s in type setting, so almost Reiff nach
Pennsylvanien.

The natives in Gottlieb Mittelberger's Journey to Pennsylvania (1756) may be the first in all travel accounts to talk back. Moralizers like the author of that Journey are not like the scientific Elizabethan Thomas Harriot, A briefe and true report of the new found land of Virginia who went with Raleigh to Virginia in 1585 or the poet Francis Daniel Pastorius who founded Germantown in 1683, Description of Pennsylvania (1700). Organ meister Mittelberger (1714-1758) is a gossip and temporary immigrant who only sticks it out a few years. This charms us in a way. He arrived in Pennsylvania in 1750 and was so offended with the "lawlessness," especially of one Conrad Reiff, that when he returned to Germany he exposed the many "unfortunate circumstances of most of the Germans who have moved to that country or are about to do so" (Journey, 1). " Someone told me" all this, he says, "and I partly found out for myself" (8).

Yahoos of Oley

His translators Handlin and Clive call his gossip "direct observations" when it concerns the unfortunate German travelers who sold their future as indentured servants to get passage. But other than Capt. John Deimer and a preacher or two, Mittelberger names only two examples of “the wicked life some people lead in this free country” (84). Overcome with the circumstances “on my voyage to and fro” (9) he reports the “divine retribution” that fell on these Yahoos of Oley. Yahoo signifies a filthy crude brute, a prejudice that overtook both native and immigrant out of Gulliver's Travels that affect even more recent travelers like William Least Heat Moon, who, in searching his “shelves [for] accounts of exploration and travel in America, pulled down Journey To Pennsylvania...astonished to come across an anecdote in the Journey about one of my grandfathers [Conrad Reiff] eight generations back" (River-Horse, 92). He learns there that they “often met to pour ridicule and insults upon the preachers and the assembled congregation” (84), were the worst of all misguided folk who had "changed their faith" (83) and in 1753, when these two scoffers met again, according to their evil habit…” (84) they came to ruination. Moon thinks the "assertions about divine retribution are mendacious" (93), but Mittelberger says it “had a visible effect on other scoffers." Moon, facetiously agreeing with the adversary, says he is proud of his ancestor, "like grandfather, like grandson," (92)… "he did die unshriven!" (93). But Moon, if he must, must die alone in his sins, for his grandfather Conrad changed his ways, as we shall see.

Both Moon and Mittelberger are wrong, but take the organist first, who was a patron of organs long before he became a journalist. Long time resident Conrad Reiff had an organ too so they must have met early since organs were the purpose of Mittelberger's journey. “The organ was waiting for me,” he says, “ready to be shipped to Pennsylvania. With this organ I took the usual route down the Neckar and the Rhine…I spent nearly four years in America and, as my testimonials show, held the post of organist and schoolteacher in the German St. Augustine’s Church in Providence [Muhlenberg's church]” (7). His farcical tales, embellished arguments and “uproarious laughter” taken at face value for centuries, suffer from an abuse of the adverbs “often” and “frequent,” so even his style seems to question his assertions.

Doubt About the Organs

First, his organ bringing is in doubt. Lutheran pastor Peter Brunnholz, who assisted Henry Melchior Muhlenberg at Philadelphia and Germantown from 1745 to 1757, reported to Halle (the Institution that persuaded Muhlenberg to accept the call to North America) in 1752 about organ building and existing organs in Pennsylvania, but "Mittelberger is not mentioned at all in the letter, raising the question of just what his connection with the organ was, if any” (Brunner, 51). Mittelberger says there were six organs in Pennsylvania at that time, "all of which came into the country during the four years of my stay there," but Brunner says there were "certainly more than six organs in Pennsylvania by the time he left in 1754,” and “the six he mentions did not all arrive during his stay" (53). These "exaggerations and inaccuracies," "embellishment of the facts casts doubt on his credibility" (53), and "since his claims concerning the two organs he was directly connected with as organist seem to be false, it is unlikely that he imported any organs at all" (54). But Brunnholz's reliability may also be in doubt. He was that he was a suffering and terminally ill alcoholic, apparent since 1754, mentioned in Muhlenberg's letter of 18 March 1757, the year of his death, as a "burden and an outrage." (Muhlenberg Correspondence, Vol 4, 29-30). But there is reason to question Mittelberger beyond the his organs. Even if "reliable” witnesses may have “told him” of the scoffers’ actions he would have known himself the details of 1753 he reports, since he did not return to Germany for another year. his zeal to put offenders in their place claims Conrad Reiff died of an act of “divine retribution” when in fact he lived two decades more.

It’s not that Mittelberger didn’t know the malefactors well. Huffnagel and Conrad Reiff were long time citizens. Huffnagel owned land in Oley since 1717, (Philip E. Pendleton. Oley Valley Heritage. The Colonial Years: 1700-1775, 177) and assigned a tract to Reiff in 1743. Their lands adjoin in 1750 (198). Mittelberger would have gotten around to see them based on his talent with the organ, and because he is a new journalist we expect him at social events.

The big event in January 1753 was the funeral of Conrad Reiff's mother, Anna. Mittelberger's employer, Pastor Muhlenberg had been asked to officiate. Mittelberger would have played the organ if it had not been held at a Mennonite church which had none. As a journalist he loved all "large and distinguished assembly" as Muhlenberg says this was in his Journals (I, 353). Was this where Mittelberger learned of Conrad Reiff's follies, for the January funeral was certainly before the putative eagles felled Reiff in his field in summer. The funeral, the eagle attack, Mittelberger's departure from Muhlenberg all occurred in 1753 three years before the Journey was published in 1756, but we imagine Mittelberger at the funeral chatting about how it was "still pretty difficult to hear good music" (Journey, 87) and complimenting private English "spinet or harpsichord concerts." There of course he would boast, "I brought the first organ into the country" (87) and about the "fine and good instruments" people came "up to thirty hours' journey" to hear [him] play. "Here's how to make better organ pipes, out of cedar trees with "a purer tone than those made of tin," he would say (56). All the organs "came into the country during the four years of my stay" (88). What a love of music won't do! He even played "the organ for a savage family" (63).

At the wedding reception he would have told about the "clumsy hangman" (73), the young wife and the old wife (71-2), the turtles at the market (50), the fireflies (61). But even though the funeral was in Salford they wouldn't talk of Oley. Crude Oley was home of the "New Born" monsters: "such outrageous coarseness and rudeness result from the excessive freedom in that country" (48). Mittelberger knew Reiff as one of those who mocked the "preachers" and made "the German and English newspapers of Philadelphia" (45) laugh with their crudities. But that is what you expect when "totally unlearned men [preached] in the open fields" (44). "Most preachers are engaged... like cowherds in Germany" (47).

Mittelberger's naive translators say he is accurate in "direct observations" (xvi) of the Redemptioners who enticed poor German immigrants into selling themselves for passage so that "later scholars who have reviewed the evidence have been well impressed by the accuracy of the book" (xvi). But it was not a direct observation when "a flight of golden eagles" attacked Reiff in his field because of his "wicked life," and tried "to kill him." This symbolic justice eagle also came came to tear out little Stephen Dedalus' eyes. "Apologize apologize," they threatened poor Stephen, "the eagle will come and pull out your eyes!" Such fear was struck in Conrad Reiff's heart, that "from that time on he would not trust himself out of his house." Mittelberger says he only survived at all by the intervention of his neighbors. But this is every bit a crock, none of which happened:

"Reif...was suddenly attacked in his field by a flight of golden eagles who sought to kill him. And this would have happened without fail had he not piteously cried for help, so that some neighbors came to his assistance. From that time on, he would not trust himself out of his house. He fell victim to a wasting disease and died in sin, unrepentant and unshriven. These two examples had a visible effect on other scoffers, similarly inclined (85)."

"The two scoffers struck their bargain." Huffnagel "who had been so ready to get rid of his place in Heaven, wanted to go down [italics ours] to his cellar the next day [and] suddenly dropped dead." Conrad got the better part. He took Huffnagel's place in heaven for his own in hell, says Mittelberger: That is, in a stroke of poetic justice he bargained for hell and died in the basement! Let that be a lesson! Scholar Pendleton thinks this is too apocryphal (108) at least by half, but Huffnagel did die in 1753, suddenly, that is, intestate. So Mittelberger is shall we say one for two, for Reiff lived two decades more (d. 1777). Only one further correction is necessary, Conrad Reiff did not live unshriven as the reprobate Least Heat Moon hopes to justify his own sins, any more than he was a "victim to [Mittelberger's] wasting disease...unrepentant." Our Conrad died "in hopes of a joyful resurrection," as we will see. So be careful what you wish for and what you trust.

After the funeral of Conrad Reiff's mother Anna above, where we recall the offender and righteous met over bowls, Pastor Muhlenberg wrote, "she had several married sons who are well thought of, and some of these profess the Reformed religion while others believe in nothing but the transitory riches of this earth" (Journals, I, 352). Conrad was the one with riches but not the Reformed religion. He married Margaretha, daughter of New Born scion Philip Kuhlwein, brother-in-law of Matthias Baumann, founder of the Newborn. Conrad inherited Kuhlwein's land in 1736 (Pendleton, 108) and Baumann's (d. 1727) to boot! The configurations of the Baumann and Kuhlwein estates of 1725, adjoin on a southwest axis, and are roughly equivalent to the Conrad Reiff estate of 1750. This is success in "transitory riches."

Huffnagel and Reiff were however as Mittelberger claimed, "archenemies of clergy," tasteless as it seems, "scoffing at them and the Divine Word." They heaped "ridicule and insults upon preachers and the assembled congregations," and laughed at, "denying Heaven and future bliss as well as damnation in Hell" (Journey, 84). We are prepared to address the theology of the Newborn which will show some mitigation to these reports, but in the same language Mittelberger the Newborn Muhlenberg applies to Reiff's errant nephew, innkeeper Conrad Gehr, that he "ridiculed" the "Word of God and the other means of grace," mocked the churches by holding an "assembly of worship in his [tavern] house on Sunday" after which the enforced offering, "three pence apiece," was "consumed in drink." Communicants there argued that "revealed religion," "heaven and hell," are used by preachers merely "to make a living" (I, 352-3). That Huffnagel and Reiff "often met" implies the same sort of affair nephew Gehr was running in his tavern.

What Mittelberger complained of in 1753 however had been commonplace three or four decades before in the disorder of the frontier. One group focused this lawlessness better than others, that being the New Born. If Mittelberger is upset about their mockery of the church, it was old news by 1753, but you need an audience for anti-worship, of which the "meeting" in Gehr's tavern is a good example.

History reads better as fiction. Since we have disposed Huffnagel in the basement and Mittelberger has left the state, fast forward to Reiff ten years later, September 1764, at a collection taken up for the building of the Wentz Church, successor to the previously established Reiff Church founded by his brother and father. The intent of the fund raising campaign was to build a "House of Worship...in the Nurture of the Lord and to the Praise of His Holy Name." (The Perkiomen Region, I, 38). Fundraising efforts had fallen short. The first collecting tour raised only 12 pounds, 4 shillings. A second effort outside the immediate congregation found themselves "obliged to apply to the Charitable Benevolence of all well disposed Christians to contribute their Mite towards the finishing of the said Meeting House." George Alsentz, the Evangelical Reformed minister, urged (August 1764): "In as much as the generous contributions hitherto received from kind friends were far from sufficient to defray the expenditures of our church we are obliged to turn to other benefactors to find out their benevolent disposition toward our enterprise…May the God of all mercy send his richest blessing upon all benefactors, such is my wish, and in witness of the foregoing I hereunto set my hand" (Glatfelter, 41).

This tour did better, raised 15 pounds, 9 shillings. They went to New Jersey, through Goshenhoppen "and then up towards Oley" (44). There were 400 contributions, illustrious names like Philip Boehm gave l shilling, Peter Miller, Beissel's right hand at Ephrata, editor of the Chronicon Ephratense, gave a shilling, Friedrich Hilligass (father of the first Treasury Secretary) gave 5. The two largest gifts, however, 10 shillings each, were made by Georg Welker and Conrad Reiff (39-44). So where is the renegade now, considering the language of the subscribing petition, and its references to "pious exercises," "the Nurture of the Lord " and "the Praise of His Holy Name?" What happened to "the Holy Scriptures old, outworn fables, tomfoolery, and the like, and said that the parsons had to make so and so out of it in order not to lose their bread and butter" (Muhlenberg I, 139). Acceptance of the pious language of the petition demonstrates a return from those who had "changed their faith" back to a reaffirmation of his Reformed roots. The Newborn were never politic in their beliefs but as "harsh and uncharitable" as Philip Bayer had been before his reconciliation (Muhlenberg I, 357).

Money was short, so again, when the first church was dedicated in November 1763, the "costs of this undertaking were greater than anticipated. "... incurred just as a depression hit the colonies following the French and Indian War" (Gladfelter I, 384). The assembly authorized a lottery to pay the debt, since "the members of the German Reformed church in the township of Worcester, in the county of Philadelphia, have erected a church and school house in the said township, the expense and costs whereof have been so great as to amount to a debt of six hundred pounds more than they are able to pay" (Gladfelter, I, 384).

The Will

Thus the change in Conrad Reiff in old age is just plain frustrating to mockery, but so is the language of his will, which deviates substantially from convention in the statement of faith in the preface. Conventional language took a generic form. For example, the will of John Pawling of 1733 is word for word identical to the will of Christopher Dock in 1762.

"That is to say, Principally and first of all I give and recommend my Soul into the hands of God that gave it, and for my body I recommend it to the Earth to be buried in a Christian like and decent manner at the discretion of my Executor, nothing doubting but at the general Resurrection I shall receive the same again by the mighty Power of God, And as touching such Worldly Estate wherewith it has pleased God to bless me in this Life I give devise and dispose of the same in the following manner and form." (The Perkiomen Region, III, 17, and II, 25).

Slightly different phrasings, spellings, a different order of sentences and a shortened order of divine disposition mark the statement of Gabriel Shuler's will of 1776:

"First, I recommend my Soul in the hands of God my Creator, and my Body to the Earth to be buried at the Discrition of my Executors. And as for my worldly Goods & Effects, wherewith it hath pleased God to bless me in this Life, I give and dispose the same in Mannor following…"(The Perkiomen Region, II, 45).

Nicholas Wohlfart, in 1788 is content merely to say that "first of all I commend my Soul into the Hands of Almighty God that gave it" (The Perkiomen Region, I, 129). Mathias Sheiffle in 1790 says only that "first I Deliver my Soul in to the Hand of the allmighty god, and my body to the Earth to Be Buried in Christian Lick manner. . ." (The Perkiomen Region, I, 110).

But Conrad Reiff's confession of faith in his will is most explicit. If we compare it with his father's, Hans George (1726), and his brother George (1759), neither make any such statements: "I, John George Reiff of Salford Township for County of Philadelphia and province of Pennsylvania, Smith, being weak of Body but of Perfect Mind and Memory do make and Order this my last will and Testament. . ."(Riffe, 20). Conrad's brother George, proceeds: "Will of George Reiff, Germantown, Philadelphia County Pennsylvania…" (Riffe, 28).

Conrad's will of 1777 differs from his father's and brother's as much as it does from the general community, which suggests there was a point he wanted to make. "In the name of God Amen. I Conrad Reiff of Oley township in the county of Berks and province of Pennsylvania, Yeoman, being infirm and weak in body but of sound mind memory and understanding blessed be God for the same. And well knowing that all flesh must die therefore do make my last will and testament in the following manner. I recommend my infinite soul into the hands of Almighty God who gave it to me and my body to the earth whence it was taken in sure and certain hopes of a joyful resurrection through the merits of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

Four notable points of departure which affect the disposition of soul and body set the will apart .

1) His "infinite" soul he gives into the hands of God.

2) His body is not recommended "to the Earth to be buried in a Christian like decent manner at the discretion of my Exects." He has neither "decent manner" nor discreet executor. He replaces the negative "nothing doubting," with his "certain hopes,"

3) not of a "general" but of a "joyful resurrection" that has his body, taken from earth once, taken once again. Finally he concludes that this all will occur

4) "through the merits of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" and not through such efforts as those offered, for example, by the secretary of Mr. Penn, through "our good works and obedience," cited below.

This last will and testament must have been made for his progeny and the public alike. The import that he does not trust in his own merits, riches or wit, but in the "merits of my Lord" and in the "certain hopes of a joyful resurrection," is not that of a scoffer, but words that Muhlenberg would ratify.

The important conclusions that emerge from this are, first, that the words of his will are the best confirmation we can get that Mittelberger, if he had the details wrong, got the essence right. Conrad Reiff leaves just such a personal testimony in his will because he was guilty of the behavior Mittleberger charged. He goes out of his way to contradict his past. A renunciation of the Newborn sinlessness is explicit in his statement, hence, we conclude, Mittelberger's report, at least the first part, is credible.

Second, the phrase "through the merits of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" is a polar opposite of the Newborn view reported by Boehm that "they claim that they have essential divinity in themselves" (Life and Letters, 1728, 161). As to the meaning of the phrase, Muhlenberg suggests that "the merits of my Lord" means "to wrap oneself in Jesus wounds…the words mean rather the perfect payment which our Mediator made for our sins, guilt, and punishment, the perfect righteousness which He obtained for us by His life, sufferings, and death. To inwrap one's self therein means to appropriate and assume Christ's merit and righteousness in faith. . ." (Journals, I, 123). To a Newborn such language would be repugnant, for the Newborn "pride themselves in their own righteousness" (Muhlenberg, I, 357). Conrad Reiff would not have been the first to come full circle, but he might have been the last such of the Newborn proselytes who founded the Oley Reformed Church.

In larger context the phrase "through the merits of my Lord" had been a rallying cry of George Whitfield when he made his trip through Philadelphia in 1739. Distinguishing between the outward and inward fruits of faith, so important to the Newborn who denied the need for the outward, also a point of contention for the Quakers. Whitefield had exhorted a Quaker meeting "that they would talk of an outward as well as an inward Christ; for otherwise, we make our own holiness, and not the righteousness of Jesus Christ the cause of our being accepted by God." (Journals, 338). This self-righteousness had been the crux of the Newborn's rejection of church and scripture. Following the theme further, Muhlenberg said, "…first one must wrap one's self in the wounds, then Christian living must follow." As we have noted from the Weiss' dialogues, (41) the outward, the living part was superfluous because "he has all the inner fruits, but he declares he can see no use for such outward things" (Sachse, 159). These outward things Conrad Reiff now affirms by commitment to the outer Christ, the one whose external merits become the means of his hope for the "joyful resurrection."

Whitefield revisits this when he returned to Philadelphia later that year, Sunday, November 25:

". . .after I had done preaching a young gentleman, once a minister of the Church of England, but secretary to Mr. Penn, stood up with a loud voice, and warned the people against the doctrine I had been delivering, urging, 'that there was no such term as imputed righteousness in Holy Scripture; that such a doctrine put a stop to all goodness; that we were to be judged for our good works and obedience, and were commanded to do and live.' When he had ended, I denied his first proposition, and brought a text to prove that "imputed righteousness" was a scriptural expression…I discoursed in the afternoon, and shewed how the Lord Jesus was to be our whole righteousness . . .the church was thronged within and without; all were wonderfully attentive; and many, as I was informed, were convinced that the Lord Christ was our Righteousness" (Journals, 352,353).

On April 24, 1740 Whitefield preached thus also at Skippack, but of course the doctrine of the Substitution cannot be thought peculiar to him or to the Moravians who assisted in the Skippack visit (Journals, 410). It is likely Conrad Reiff had several chances to adopt such a phrase in his life and in his will and it is good possibility that he did so through the Moravians. So it is a loaded phrase that he demonstrates in a word that in his end he had come back to his beginning.

Works Cited

Raymond J. Brunner. "That Ingenious Business" Pennsylvania German Organ Builders. Birdsboro, PA: The Pennsylvania German Society, 1990

Chronicon Ephratense. Ephrata, 1786. Tr. By J. Max Hark, Lancaster, 1889.

James Y. Heckler. History of Franconia Township. 1901. Bedminster, PA: Adams Apple Press, 1993.

The History of Harleysville and Lower Salford Township. 1886. Bedminster, PA: Adams Apple Press, 1993.

Glatfelter, Charles H. Pastors and People: German Lutheran and Reformed Churches in the Pennsylvania Field, l7l7-l793. 2 Vols. Breinigsville, PA: The Pennsylvania German Society, l980.

Mittelberger, Gottlieb. Journey To Pennsylvania. Edited and Translated by Oscar Handlin and John Clive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960.

The Correspondence of Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg, Volume 4, 1757-1762. Translated and Edited by Wolfgang Splitter and Timothy J. Wengert. Rockland ME: Picton Press, 2010.

Journals of Henry Melchior Mühlenberg. The Translated by Theodore G. Tappert and John W. Doberstein. Fortress, 1958. Reprinted by Picton Press, Camden, ME.

The Life and Letters of the Rev. John Philip Boehm. Edited by the Rev. William J. Hinke. Philadelphia: Sunday School Board of the Reformed Church in the United States, 1916.

Pendleton, Philip E. Oley Valley Heritage, The Colonial Years: 1700-1775. Birdsboro, PA: The Pennsylvania German Society, 1994.

Pennypacker, Samuel Whitaker. The Settlement of Germantown Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: William J. Campbell, 1899. Reprinted 1997 by Higginson Book Company, Salem, MA.

The Perkiomen Region. Vols. 1-5. Adams Apple Press, Bedminster, PA, 1994.

Reiff, Harry E. Reiff Families in America. Baltimore: Gateway Press, 1986.

Riffe, Fred J. Reiff to Riffe Family in America. 1995.

Sachse, Julius Friedrich. The German Sectarians of Pennsylvania, 1708-1742. 2 Vols.
Philadelphia: 1899, AMS:1971.

George Whitefield's Journals (1737-1741). Gainesville: Scholars' Facsimiles Reprints, 1969.

If Jacob is the leading righteous brother, Conrad is the one astray.

Conrad Reiff, The Journey to Pennsylvania (1756) and Outlaw Outtakes on Conrad Reiff, Oley and the Reiff Brothers of Schuippach

see: a 2022 felonious attempt on The Conrad Reiff Homestead, by the

Berks History Research, LLC, a bookstore, tagged a product from their shop. on FB, Joseph L. Mitchell https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AAdjbGkeGXveMdQ&cid=CB88AD3F78E6EBA1&id=CB88AD3F78E6EBA1%21120136&parId=CB88AD3F78E6EBA1%21120129&o=OneUp

--Christopher Sower, early description of Pennsylvania Letter of Christopher Sower, Written in 1724, Describing Conditions in Philadelphia and Vicinity, and the Sea Voyage from Europe

--The Journal of Kelpius, 11-28, including his voyage of 1694, ed by Sachse in The Diarium of Magister Johannes Kelpius

Gottlieb Mittelberger's Journey to Pennsylvania is studied as a classic in college classes made Conrad Reiff a fallen star. But in the end that article in the Berks County Historical Review proved him changed, with evidence that at least some of the accusations were an old world fabrication of the new. Thus the single most important contemporary publication about Pennsylvania from the wider view of Europe was compromised.

Just returned from a visit to Conrad Reiff, Sept 2012, the estate in decline, the apple orchards still bearing, but the roof, the shutters falling.The smithy stands more solidly along the road where we arrived at the end of a long day, nobody home.

Smithy. "The clay tile roof, is more abundant in Oley than any other place. There are thirty-eight tile-roofed buildings in the township, six on the Conrad Reiff farm alone. Known as Oley Valley tiles, they are fashioned of native clay, designed with grooves to channel water to the central overlapping section. Because of their weight, heavy roof timbering and bracing was required."

House

Journey to Pennsylvania was Pennsylvania's comeuppance in 1756, exposing the foibles of all its informal religions, but especially regarding Conrad Reiff and the Newborn, a serious malefactor. For more than two centuries the allegations of Gottlieb Mittelberger were unchallenged, except with Pendleton and Brunner. Biographers such as Fred Riffe pass over the events in embarrassed silence. The situation is worsened with Conrad's younger brother Jacob, who got in as much trouble with the Reformed about 1727 as Conrad ever did in his odyssey with the Newborn. A dozen Reformed historians with selective memory and rhetorical edits exonerated themselves and their principals in the founding of the Reformed church in Pennsylvania. Two brothers scandalizing two different religions at the same time is almost too much to hope for. More of Conrad Reiff's odyssey can be found at Outbreaks of Pennsylvania Lawless.

Outlaw Outtakes on Conrad Reiff

Some of Conrad Reiff's biography in the Historical Review fell to the cutting floor, but suppositions continue that he and Gottlieb Mittelberger were friends of a sort. We get a glimpse of this at Anna Reiff’s funeral in 1753. Before he left Pennsylvania in 1753 for Germany Mittelberger must have attended that funeral service. All the Reiffs were there.The object of his pejorative, Conrad Reiff, was. We develop the likelihood of their contact in the article. At the funeral of their mother various contacts among the frontier brothers occurred, at the funeral and also at the reading of the will of their brother George in 1759.

Prodigal Son and Conrad Gehr

Oley and the Newborn influenced Conrad Reiff, brothers Peter and George and Jacob's daughter Catherine, all who either lived there or owned land there. Spiritually the effects of Oley were more serious upon Conrad Reiff's mother and sister (Anna Maria and Anna) through the aforesaid sister's husband Conrad Gehr. The connection between Gehr and Conrad Reiff involves Gehr's experience of the Newborn, which is as important as Conrad's because they together flesh out the satirical Newborn beliefs and show the influence in the family. Genealogist Harry Reiff says the "family knew about Conrad's (Gehr) peccadilloes, as indicated in the will of Hans George's son, George (d.1759), who died leaving a legacy to nephew Baltazar with an admonition not to permit his father, Conrad Gehr, to have any of the legacy" (Letter of 2/13/2002).

Conrad Gehr's peccadilloes were 1) that he operated a tavern in Germantown (before 1753) where he sponsored a mock religious service on Sunday where Newborn blasphemy was commonplace and 2) that he had been imprisoned for fraud. In that account in Muhlenberg's Journals (I, 352-3) Conrad Gehr is called the "blasphemer" who "became entangled in a money-making scheme, was caught, and was thrown into prison. There, unbidden, he took up the Bible again." Muhlenberg would know this because of his close relation with Gehr's wife Anna and mother, and from the report of George Stoltz, who told the particular incident of a fire in the adjoining house to him. Gehr figures prominently in Muhlenberg's writing after the funeral of Conrad's mother, Anna. The daughter, Anna Maria, had been "attached to the Evangelical (Lutheran) Church," which means Muhlenberg must have heard firsthand the distress Gehr put his wife through by his behavior. This distress doubled because at that time the mother lived with her daughter. Muhlenberg says:

"During my first years here [1742 and following] she was living with her daughter in Germantown…for the sake of her daughter the distressed old widow stayed at the former's home…she was obliged to listen to many a blasphemous utterance and witness many an offense on the part of her son-in-law, who was Reformed by birth, but in this country not only forsook the Word of God and the other means of grace, but also despised and ridiculed them" (I, 352).

Muhlenberg stipulates that the "offenses" included, that "the said man maintained a public house and it occurred to him that he might institute a so-called assembly of worship in his house on Sundays. For this purpose he associated himself with a half-educated but totally perverted Christian who was to deliver a sermon or address on physic or natural science at every meeting. The auditors were obligated to pay three pence apiece each time, and this money was to be consumed in drink after the speech" (I, 353).

New Born ideas gave a metaphysic to this tavern talk, even if it sounds like Paine's Age of Reason (1795) or other enlightenment doctrines. Such attitudes were early 18th century and German, the specific form that Mittelberger saw affecting Conrad Reiff. But these were not isolated from all the other revisions of order in PA, from Wohlfarth and Beissel [of Epherta] standing on the court house steps to argue which day of the week was the sabbath (Sachse, German Sectarians, I, 154) to Gehr's substitution of tavern for church, science for scripture and the price of a drink for the offering. These suggest that the 1701 Blue Law of the General Court of Germantown was not being enforced which said: "no inn-keepers on the first day called Sunday in God's service, shall hold gatherings of guests. . .on pain of whatever penalty the court of record shall inflict" (Pennypacker, Germantown, 283). Gehr was the brunt of gossip Muhlenberg had heard: "a trustworthy man named Georg Stoltz came to me and related the following incident. One evening he and a Swiss gentlemen were obliged to stop at the blasphemer's house and put up for the night. He went out of his way to annoy his two guests with sinful talk. Among other things he said that the context of nature is God, that the world came into existence by an accident in eternity, that the universe maintained itself, etc. What the parsons say about God, about a revealed religion, about a Saviour, and about heaven and hell, they have to say to make a living and in order to lead the masses by the nose."

Although Muhlenberg does not name it so, such views easily mask themselves as naturalism. Gehr's satire is very much in the Newborn manner, like Conrad and those others to whom the sacraments were "ridiculous and their expressions concerning them are extremely offensive" (Muhlenberg), who uttered "such blasphemous words against our Saviour" (Boehm), who theatrically mocked preachers in parody (Mittelberger), who "despise preachers, churches and sacraments without discrimination" (Muhlenberg), who scoff that manure is life and pig the destiny of the soul. The Newborn catechism was as active in the tavern of Gehr as in the township of Oley except that Gehr went his brother-in-law one better and mixed the scoff with drink.

Such tavern philosophy is reported in practically every contemporary account of the Newborn. Gehr's metaphysic implicates both brother and brother-in-law in the Newborn practice. While Boehm's summary of the sects names Puritans, Baptists and Pietists it is really the Newborn of Gehr's metaphysic that he exposes:

"Independents, Puritans, Anabaptists, Newborn, Saturday-folks, yea even the most horrible heretics, Socinians, Pietists, etc., among whom dreadful errors prevail; indeed heinous blasphemies against our great God and Savior and their own exaltation over His Majesty; for they claim that they have essential divinity in themselves; that they cannot sin…they believe there is no other heaven or hell than what is here on earth; they even deny Divine Providence, and assert that nothing needs God's blessing, but that all products of the ground and all offspring of animals and of the human race, come simply from nature, without any care on the part of God, and that prayer also is useless. (Life and Letters, (1728) 161."

The conflicted Balthaser Gehr, son of Anna Reiff II and Conrad Gehr, (mentioned in PA supreme court case, (see genealogy here) also probably attended. He had fiduciary and legal care of his cousin Philip Reiff, Conrad’s son, from 1786 to his death in 1815. Sort of like the son of the innkeeper in the Fellowship of the Ring, Balthaser Gehr (cf. Pendleton, 137, 147) married the daughter of that equally wealthy neighbor of Conrad Reiff, Antony Jaeger. In 1767 Jaeger's "sons Daniel and Henry, and his son-in-law Balthaser Gehr were tried for assault and battery on the Jaegers' lifelong neighbor, miller Heinrich Kerst. A neighbor, Jacob Silvious, also stood trial for coming to Kerst's defense" (Pendleton, 147). As said, Balthaser exercised a power of attorney for his infirm cousin, Philip Reiff, second son of Conrad, in 1786 (Pendleton, 137). But in more outbreaks of the lawless, Baltes too went Oley.

The disposition of another son of Gehr, Philip, is unknown, who appears in the ledger of the Old Salford Store (c. 1766-1774), reported as, "Gehr, Philip; Conrad Gehr's son of Germantown" (John R. Tallis, The Perkiomen Region, II, 33).] Conrad Gehr is also mentioned near the bottom of the will of Hans George Reiff (d. 1726), in a different handwriting than the will reads: "Cunrad Gehr married Anna," (Riffe, 20), suggesting this was written after probate. Gehr had been issued a patent by the land office for 34 acres in the Salfords in 1735, the same year as Garrett Clemens, Christopher Dock, Peter Wentz and Hans Reiff, among others (H. W. Kriebel in The Perkiomen Region, V, 11), but Heckler speculates he possibly was there confused with Conrad Custer (Heckler, Lower Salford, I, 13). Gehr had at least two sons. Baltazar, or Baltes Gehr served in the Pennsylvania legislature. He is mentioned in his uncle's will, (George Reiff) in 1759, "my will is after my sister's son Baltes should set up his trade, my wife shall give him twenty pounds to buy tools for it" (Riffe, 28). It should be noted that Anna was not called Anna Maria as her full name is suggested to be, but merely Anna, like her mother, who signed Anna in the Landes will and on the board in the attic.
There was also a Peter Gehr, d. 12 May 1764 at Ephrata Cloister mentioned also in Chronicon (131).

While Conrad became a prodigal in joining the Newborn at midlife, he later seems to repudiate them in word and deed, which suggests that he came home. For that story you have to get the Review.

Conrad was not a recent immigrant to Philadelphia. He had lived in Skippack with his family from at least 1717, the first mention of his father's land. His brother Jacob was named in 1723 as an agent for the government. Though Reformed, his father, Hans George, was a signatory witness of the trust agreement for the Salford Mennonite Meeting House in 1725. There has been some suggestion [Harry Reiff] that Conrad's mother, Anna Maria, was the educated daughter of a Dutch Reformed church minion.

Conrad's first explicit mention occurs in his father's will of 1726 where the estate was equally divided between himself and his siblings. His name next appears with his brothers, Peter and George, in their petition to Governor Gordon of April 29, 1728 where 74 "Back Inhabitors," residents along Skippack Creek, sought protection against the Indians. He was an executor (with Henry Funk and Christian Allebach) of the will of Claus Upleger, drawn up August 3, 1730: "Guardians or Executors over my wife, children and all the goods which I left behind" (Heckler, History of Franconia Township, 10-11).

About this time he left Skippack for Oley, where he bought 300 acres in 1730. Remaining yet a while, he again petitioned the Assembly with his neighbors in 1731 to be "permitted to enjoy the rights and privileges of English subjects" (Riffe, 26). He is doubtless included with his brothers in the recriminations of the rival Reformed shepherds, George Michael Weiss and John Philip Boehm which preoccupied the founding of the Reformed Church in Skippack. These disputes began with Weiss's arrival in September 1727. Boehm includes them all in the phrase, "Jacob Reiff and his brothers" (Letter of 1730 in Life and Letters, 217). In these years, 1727 – 1731, Conrad probably took care of his brother Jacob's farm while Jacob was abroad, that is, from the end of 1727, with one six month respite, until September 1731 when he returned from his second voyage.

Conrad may have bought the land in Oley in anticipation of his marriage of 1733. Maybe he was tired of being of the "party of Reiff" that Boehm so incessantly argued his brother Jacob ran in Skippack, sort of an out of the frying pan into the fire thing. Maybe it was the expression of a pioneering spirit. If however he was seeking peace and quiet from religious disputes he could not have gone in a worse direction. He was one of those worldly sons that Muhlenberg disapproved. Ruminating over the matriarch Anna's obsequies in 1753 he says, "she had several married sons who are well thought of, and some of these profess the Reformed religion while others believe in nothing but the transitory riches of this earth" (Muhlenberg, Journals, I, 352).

Conrad moved to Oley in 1733 and married Anna Margaretha Kuhlwein, Mary, daughter of Philip Kuhlwein, brother-in-law of Matthias Baumann, founder of the Newborn. Kuhlwein had pioneered that area as an advance for Baumann in 1709. When Kuhlwein chose the Oley Valley as the site for the perfectionist Neugeborene colony, he and Jean LeDee were the first German-speaking settlers (Pendleton, 106). Since Baumann came to Oley at Kuhlwein's advise, it is no surprise that Kuhlwein took over leadership of the colony after Baumann's death in 1727.

We should probably assume Conrad Reiff's acceptance of Newborn beliefs, although they were pretty different from those in which he was raised. In marrying the scion's daughter, a family with no sons, he would inherit extensive land holdings. Marriage transported him into the bosom of the Newborn community. Thus, he immediately is identified with the twenty or so families that originally settled the north Oley valley starting about 1712 (Pendleton, 27): Baumann, Bertolet, Levan, DeTurk, Joder (Yoder), Kuhlwein, Huffnagel, Schenkel, Keim, Schneider, Hoch, Ballie, Peter, Herbein, Weber, Kersten, Aschmann, Ritter, and Kauffmann (Pendleton, 18). No one benefited more from the Newborn than Conrad Reiff, who gained a wife, a homestead, two sons and inherited Philip Kuhlwein's estate in less than four years, ranking him among the largest landholders and candidate for richest man of Oley, far surpassing his brother Jacob down in Skippack. He had success in the "transitory riches."

Not only did Conrad Reiff inherit Kuhlwein's estate upon his death in 1736 (Pendleton, 108), he seems to have inherited Baumann's as well. Comparing Pendleton's maps of the Oley Zone of 1725 with 1750, the configurations of the Baumann and Kuhlwein estates of 1725, which adjoin on a southwest axis, are roughly equivalent to the Conrad Reiff estate of 1750. In the 1750 map which indicates Conrad Reiff's holdings (the estate of Philip Kuhlwein), the two tracts seem to join, as if Baumann's estate were inherited by Kuhlwein and then that augmented section inherited by Conrad Reiff. When Baumann died in 1727 did he deed it to his brother-in-law? The two estates that became one were then inherited by Reiff in 1737. Why wouldn't he remain stanch when after Baumann's death the Yoders, John Lesher, Casper Griesemer, Gabriel Boyer, (c. 1736) founded the Oley Reformed Church ( Hinke, Life and Letters, 34)? Conrad must have seemed in 1733 a good prospect to his father-in-law for all that he, even then, intended to trust him with.

Conrad's Religion

Whatever the outcome, the reputation of Conrad Reiff was materially damaged by the Journey that was "widely read and quoted" at the time of its publication in Frankfurt in 1756. "Writers in the latter half of the eighteenth century borrowed freely from it" and "the book remained well known in the nineteenth century" (Mittleberger, Handlin and Clive, xvii). Folks back home and in subsequent generations must have wondered what happened to Conrad Reiff. But folks closer to Skippack and Germantown also wondered what happened to him, as if the geography of Oley had spiritual connotations.

The Collection

That Conrad Reiff didn't die until more than 20 years after the report of his death suggests there may be more truth to the eagles than we can literally recognize. How dramatic did it have to be? His change of heart is evidenced in a collection taken in September 1764 for the building of the Wentz Church, successor to the previously established Reiff Church.

"The Evangelic Reformed Congregation in Skippack found themselves necessitated for building of a House of Worship by Reason of the Great Distance they have to church or meeting, which is Six miles or more." Their intention, "their indispensable Duty" was so that "their Youth might be the better brought up in the Nurture of the Lord and to the Praise of His Holy Name." The fundraising efforts however had fallen short, "they find themselves obliged to apply to the Charitable Benevolence of all well disposed Christians to contribute their Mite towards the finishing of the said Meeting House according to their good Will and Abilities-Knowing that the Lord will richly reward all Such Charitable Gifts or Alms, Which are given with a Simplicit Heart" (The Perkiomen Region, I, 38). Since the first collecting tour raised only 12 pounds, 4 shillings a second effort was made outside the immediate congregation. George Alsentz, the Evangelical Reformed minister, urged (August 1764): "In as much as the generous contributions hitherto received from kind friends were far from sufficient to defray the expenditures of our church we are obliged to turn to other benefactors to find out their benevolent disposition toward our enterprise…May the God of all mercy send his richest blessing upon all benefactors, such is my wish, and in witness of the foregoing I hereunto set my hand" (4l). This tour raised 15 pounds, 9 shillings.

Three collections in all were made, the first in New Jersey, the second throughout Goshenhoppen and the third "through Frederick township to Falckner's Swamp and then up towards Oley" (44). Over 400 names are listed with the amount of their contributions. For example, from Goshenhoppen, Philip Boehm gave l shilling, Peter Miller gave l shilling, Friedrich Hilligass gave 5. In Oley, Casper Griesemer gave 7 shillings and so did Abraham Lewan, a comparatively generous gift. This tour raised 14 pounds, 7 shillings.

The two largest gifts of 10 shillings each were given by Georg Welker and Conrad Reiff (39-44). Considering the language of the subscribing petition, its references to "pious exercises," "the Nurture of the Lord " and "the Praise of His Holy Name," it is obvious that Conrad Reiff is no longer sympathetic to Newborn practices which "called the Holy Scriptures old, outworn fables, tomfoolery, and the like, and said that the parsons had to make so and so out of it in order not to lose their bread and butter"(Muhlenberg I, 139). Not only does his acceptance of such pious language witness a change, but we also discern in the gift a reaffirmation of his Reformed roots, supporting the attempt to restart the Skippack Reformed Church in a permanent structure again: "When George Alsentz first reported this congregation to the coetus in 1763, he called it Skippack, a name which was often used during its early years to identify it" (Gladfelter I, 384). The Newborn were never politic in their beliefs but "harsh and uncharitable" as Philip Bayer had been before his reconciliation (Muhlenberg I, 357).

To demonstrate how short funds were when the first church was dedicated in November 1763, the "costs of this undertaking were greater than anticipated. Moreover, they were incurred just as a depression hit the colonies following the French and Indian War" (Gladfelter I, 384). The assembly authorized a lottery to pay the debt, since "the members of the German Reformed church in the township of Worcester, in the county of Philadelphia, have erected a church and school house in the said township, the expense and costs whereof have been so great as to amount to a debt of six hundred pounds more than they are able to pay" (Gladfelter, I, 384).

To speculate, Conrad may have taken up with the Moravians since the language of his will is like the way they spoke. He appears in the Moravian archive Nov. 1, 1763 (Our Savage Neighbors, Silver, 2009, 343), "as if the Bethlehem [European] People had likewise a Hand in it" (dep. of Conrad Reiff, Nov. 1, 1763, Morav. Recs).

Notes

[Speaking of those pastors of the first Reformed Church in Pennsylvania, Boehm and Weiss, Sachse observes that it is "a strange coincidence that both Boehm and Baumann came to Pennsylvania about the same time from Lambsheim, in the Palatinate" (The German Sectarians, I, 157). Five years separated them. Hinke has Baumann arriving in Philadelphia in 1718, Sachse in 1719, but Pendleton (176) cites land office records that show Baumann already residing in the Oley Valley in 1714. Since Baumann had left Lambsheim in 1714 and Boehm did not resign his position as schoolmaster in Worms until November 22, 1715 (Hinke, 15) their paths did not cross in Lambsheim and at least his one indignity can be spared Mr. Boehm.]

If it is wondered why this sect rejected the Bible and its teachings, the text recorded above by Spangenberg (6) should be noted, that is, I John 1.8: "if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."

We don't really need to prove Conrad was a Newborn from his reputation or his speech. Interesting as it might be, it is a much bigger topic. We know he was a Newborn from his marriage and we know the Newborn mockeries of religions from testimonies from nearly every contemporary source.

...when the Yoders, John Lesher, Casper Griesemer, Gabriel Boyer, (c. 1736) founded the Oley Reformed Church (Hinke, Life and Letters, 34). By 1736 however, with both leaders gone, the Newborn were on their way out.

A broader case for Newborn membership includes every spirit of anticlericalism and unbelief. As with Boehm's catalogue of sects, this seems to be focused by the more spectacular Newborns. Mittelberger laments: "In Pennsylvania there exist so many varieties of doctrines and sects that it is impossible to name them all. Many people do not reveal their own particular beliefs to anyone. Furthermore there are many hundreds of adults who not only are unbaptized but who do not even want baptism. Many others pay no attention to the Sacraments and to the Holy Bible, or even to God and his Word. Some do not even believe in the existence of a true God or Devil, Heaven or Hell, Salvation or Damnation, the Resurrection of the Dead, the Last Judgment and Eternal Life, but think that everything visible is of merely natural origin. For in Pennsylvania not only is everyone allowed to believe what he wishes; he is also at liberty to express these beliefs publicly and freely" (Journey, 22).

The reason the Newborn speak so fully for all such ideas is that they are a genera. Thus the farmer says his situation good is because "I have worked hard" and none other. "I am perfectly without sin" is the metaphysical justification. Being without sin had been the contention of Newborn founder Matthias Bauman, taught in his pamplet of ..... As the Chronicon says, "there arose about that time [1720] a people in the neighborhood of Oley" (16). Through a series of propositions Bauman ends with the notion that "with the body one cannot sin before God" (Chronicon, 17) which to the Calvinists was of course impossible. Worse that these "dangerous conclusions" (17) was their technique, "...to confound men, a work they also diligently carried on during ten years, so that their disputations at market times in Philadelphia were often heard with astonishment" (17).

All the Church folk, Lutheran, Reformed, non church sectarians say "Ishmaelites,Laodiceans, Naturalists... Atheists, of whom the country was full... had forsaken their mother-church" Pennsylvania (Chronicon Ephratense. Translated by J. Max Hark. Lancaster: S. H. Zahm & Co. 1889, 71).

How exactly Mittelberger knew of the attack he doesn't say. Embellishment may swell the breast. A provocateur of all that had gone wrong in his eyes with the freedoms and frail order of Pennsylvania, Mittelberger would not himself know what he would write when he began the following year. Presumably he was taking notes. The funeral occurred about a year and a half before he left to return to Germany.

Conrad Reiff's change of faith occured when he moved to Oley and married Anna Margaretha Kuhlwein c. 1733, Mary, daughter of Kuhlwein pioneered the area for Baumann in 1709, chose the Oley Valley as the site for the perfectionist Neugeborene colony. Kuhlwein and Jean LeDee were the first German-speaking settlers (Pendleton, 106). Baumann came to Oley at Kuhlwein's advise but didn't last long; it is no surprise Kuhlwein took over leadership of the colony after Baumann died in 1727. In marrying the scion's daughter, a family with no sons, Conrad Reiff became a rich planter. He was the richest man in the area.

(Raymond J. Brunner. "That Ingenious Business" Pennsylvania German Organ Builders. Birdsboro, PA: The Pennsylvania German Society, 1990.

Chronicon. Abstract of the diary of the Brotherhood, which had been kept by Brother Lamech, and continued and edited by Brother Jaebez (Agrippa) i.e. JohanPeter Miller. Brother Lamech has been identified as Jacob Gass by Seidensticker (First Century of German Printing in America, p. 117). Evans19558: "This biography of Johann Conrad Beissel, the founder of the EphrataCommunity, is the principal source of information regarding that remarkable institution. Brother Agrippa is Johann Peter Miller; and Brother Lamech's secular name is said to be Jacob Gass

...ouˈgoost gôtˈlēp shpängˈənbĕrk, 1704–92, a bishop of the Moravian Church and a founder of that church in America, b. Prussia. While at the Univ. of Jena, he met Graf von Zinzendorf, and in 1730 he paid a visit to the Moravian colony, Herrnhut. In 1732, Spangenberg joined the theological faculty of the Univ. of Halle, but disagreement with the views of his superiors led to his dismissal. He became assistant to Zinzendorf and was sent by him on a mission to America in 1735. There, for a large portion of his life, Spangenberg was active in establishing settlements, churches, and schools in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina. In 1744 he was made bishop. Zinzendorf died in 1760; two years later Spangenberg returned to Herrnhut, where he held a place of leadership among the Brethren. His Idea Fidei Fratrum (1779, tr. 1784) was adopted as the declaration of faith of the Moravian Church. Among his other writings is a biography of Zinzendorf. If you read around the Blake entry in Flowering Heart you will find this Zinzendorf was a freak of tantric sex.

On Baumann, by Stoudt, xvii,

Further, “Herbein was hardly alone in suspecting that the real intent of the missionary effort was make everyone into good Moravians” Pendleton, 114

“One of the authors forebears was banished from Germany because he refused to accede to the magistrate’s domination of his conscience. On 3 January 1702 he told the Court at Grankfurt-am-Main that magistrates are established merely to punish evil and encourage good. In matters of faith they have no authority. This is an American principle, for Matthias Baumann became an American….

Oley

Oley was a territory of mockery: "Many agitators appeared among the backwoods, among them Matthias Baumann from Oley who came in 1719 (sic.) to conduct revivals among the godless settlers. A visionary, he taught that his disciples were free from sin and had no need for Scripture, sacraments or marriage. Many converts flocked to even Quakers, Reformed and Lutheran" (Earnst, 48). Mittelberger, three times references Oley and the newborn. (Philip E. Pendleton. Oley Valley Heritage. The Colonial Years: 1700-1775)."One of our churchmen approached a rich scoffer in Oly Township and desired to borrow some money.
The rich man said to the poor man, "Do you know who my God is?"
The poor man replied, "No."
The rich man pointed to his manure pile outside the door and said, 'there is my God; he gives me wheat and everything I need" (I, 138).
Wheat, of course, was the region's cash crop. Was this rich scoffer our Conrad?

Another, admonished to give thought to his death, laughed "that he had long since thought of his death and decided, as far as his soul was concerned, to enter into a swine, since he was fond of pork anyhow" (Muhlenberg, I, 138).Mittelberger's homily against Conrad Reiff and Arnold Huffnagel for their contempt and mockery of the clergy is his most detailed report of Oley. (Journey to Pennsylvania, 84) In it we understand the fundamental mission of the Newborn to mock the clergy. Mittelberger made example such an "objectionable preacher" giving a Newborn parody.

"Alas, among the preachers there are also several quite irritating ones who offend many people, besides causing much annoyance to our ministers. At a gathering of young farmers from the township of Oley with whom he ministers. I will cite one example of such an objectionable preacher. His name was Alexander. At a gathering of young farmers from the township of Oley with whom he had been carousing he announced that with his sermon he would so move the people standing in front of him that all of them would begin to cry, but at the very same time all of those standing behind him would start laughing. He wagered these same young farmers a considerable sum that he would be able to do this. And on a certain agreed day he appeared at a church meeting, stationed himself in the midst of the assemblage, and began to preach with a great deal of power and emotion. When he saw that his listeners had become so moved that they began to cry, he put his hands behind him, pulled his coat-tails apart, and revealed through a pair of badly torn breeches his bare behind, which he scratched with one hand during this demonstration. At this those who were standing behind him could not help roaring with laughter; and so he won his bet. An account of this disgusting incident appeared both in the German and English newspapers of Philadelphia" (45).

Following the riches theme, Muhlenberg says life in Oley was "lucrative and lascivious." A third time, June 10, 1747, "eight miles from New Hanover we stopped in at the home of an old man, one of the sect called Newborn. . .he separated from the (Reformed) Church and the Lord's Supper and refused to give the oath of loyalty to the then ruling elector, for which he was examined by the consistory and imprisoned. According to his opinion he had been persecuted and expelled for the sake of Christ and the truth, but as a matter of fact he was only confirmed in his stubbornness. He will listen to no advice, accepts neither reason nor a higher revelation in all its parts, since he is weak in understanding, headstrong, and hot-tempered; and unfortunately he abuses the freedom of Pennsylvania. When he came to this country, he joined the turbulent sect of people who call themselves Newborn."

Confounding Men

With apology to Kafka's Gregor, Matthius Baumann had his own metamorphosis during a sudden illness in 1701. His only publication was a tract written in Oley in 1723 intended for distribution in Pennsylvania, Ein Ruf an die Unwiedergebohrene Welt (A Call to the Unregenerate), part of which are preserved in the Chronicon Ephretense (1786). In mockery of the famous Quaker inner light Baumann was "translated to heaven and given the power of prophecy" (Sachse, German Sectarians, I, 73). He had trances for 14 days, saw the end of the world, had an interview with the divine. "All church and sect life as it was known - clergy, sacrament, ritual, catechism, scripture, prayer, communal worship-was an abomination before God and a waste of time. The only way to salvation was through a traumatic experience of spiritual death and rebirth, which incorporated an actual interview with the heavenly Being. Those who underwent this wrenching transformation emerged saved and, from then on, forever free of and incapable of sin" (Pendleton, 106).

The Newborn believed "perfection" was a massive internal revelation from which the "babe" could not fall. Whether the faith was Lutheran, Reformed, Moravian or anything else it was sin. More traditional communities thought that "New Born beliefs more dangerous to people's souls and to the social order than those of any other sect in Pennsylvania" (Pendleton, 106). The ridicule and blasphemy the Newborn urged was first cited in the Chronicon (17), a result of their desire to "confound men," to disrupt their religious services and rhetoric. In this confounding, Oley and the Newborn joined at the hip. Oley, derived from the Lenape name, meaning "hole" or "kettle," was thus a hollow ringed with mountains, a caldron of prophetic thornapple.

But while early it continued a little. In 1753 (although the account is published in 1756), Mittelberger, three times references Oley and the newborn in his Journey. But Mittelberger gives the Newborn current status, including them equally in his heterogeneous catalogue of "Lutherans, members of the Reformed Church, Catholics, Quakers, Mennonites or Anabaptists, Herrenhuter or Moravian Brothers, Pietists, Seventh-Day Adventists, Dunkers, Presbyterians, New-born, Freemasons, Separatists, Freethinkers, Jews, Mohammedans, Pagans, Negroes, and Indians" (41).

Silencing the newborn

Boehm wrote of Oley in 1740: "The worst were those who called themselves 'The New Born.' Without hesitation they declared themselves to be equal to God and greater than our Saviour; they pretended to be free (from sin)…however, after God had removed such shameless blasphemers of His name, the true Christians met and desired to establish, by the help of God, a congregation according to our true Reformed doctrine" (Life and Letters, 1740, 278-79) He refers to the founding of the Oley Reformed Church in 1736. Boehm said he had been aware of the Newborn since he was first in the country, eighteen years before, that is, in 1722. He mentions them first in his letter of 1728 among "all sorts of errorists, as Independents, Puritans, Anabaptists, Newborn, Saturday-folks" (Life and Letters, 1728, 161).

The multiple references of Muhlenberg and Mittelberger to the Newborn contradict Boehm's statement that they had been silenced, as does the Old Moravian record of the Oley church in 1736 that "there were at that time all kinds of spirits in Oley, of which the Newborn were the dominant party" (cited by Hinke in Life and Letters, 110). The Moravian version of the silencing is that it came about as a direct result of their efforts, namely of Spangenberg's, who in 1737 "…came to Oley and there he gave such testimony regarding the meritorious death of Christ, (this language, also that of Conrad Reiff's will, suggests he became a Moravian) with such a demonstration of the Spirit, that the power of darkness received a severe blow. His first sermon was delivered in the house of Jonathan Herbein and the second in the house of Abraham Bertholet. He attacked the newborn in his discourse from the words of I John 1:7,8,9. Through this address the spirit of the Newborn was so broken that it could not gain strength again and is daily becoming weaker" (Hinke, Life and Letters, 111).

Everybody wanted a part of the Newborn's demise. Ephratites claimed "it was observed that from this time on [after Baumann's audience with Beissel] they lost all power to spread their seductions any farther, which finally died out with their originators" (Chronicon, 17). Thus Boehm must share Baumann with the Moravians and the Moravians with The Ephratites.
Newborn notoriety was so much greater than their actual numbers, for as Boehm said, some partially agreed with them, swelling their ranks. We discern true believers, partial believers and in the pond that supports the lily pad where the fish blogs, a great swell of anti-clericalism and unbelief that the Newborn focused and gave expression to.

II. Some Sources for the Reiff Brothers of Schuippach.

The lives of the Reiff brothers, especially Conrad (c. 1696-1777) are a target for social equalizers. Conrad was one of the richest men in Oley, but he and his younger brother Jacob (1698-1782) of Skippack so ran afoul of contemporary piety that they are both immediately likable to the modern mind. In matters of religion the Reiff brothers, Conrad (c.1696-1777) and Jacob (1698-1782) ran afoul of contemporary piety, but they are likeable to the modern mind. Their biographies document as much about Pennsylvania religion as about either of them. This stream of events concerning battling shepherds, religion founders and feuding families was pretty much concluded between the death of their father in 1727 and their mother in 1753. The mutual offenses of religious practices was enough for several lifetimes. Of the four sons, George was a Reformed elder and Jacob could "discern good as well as evil" (I, 353), but Conrad and Peter lived in the Oley of ill repute. That tears it.

Also, the husband of the only daughter of that family, Conrad Gehr,gets significant mention, for he too had "despised and ridiculed," according to Muhlenberg, the "means of grace." When we compare Muhlenberg's description of Gehr with Mittelberger's of Reiff a pattern emerges. There are odd facts that seem to run counter to patterns, much as in real life. For instance how was Conrad Reiff executor of Claus Upleger of Franconia, when he then lived in Lower Salford, and that his co-executor was Henry Funk, the Mennonite Bishop. Common sense suggests that this was some other Conrad, except there was no other. Was he acting as a translator like his brother? No. Obviously the relations of the community were more wide than narrow. What did Reiff and Funk have in common that Upleger chose them, unless there was some Mennonite influence on Conrad, unlikely as this seems. In any case the question makes us take more seriously than we otherwise would the note in the Sunday Eagle Magazine (January 12, 1969) of Reading, PA, that Conrad was a "Mennonite preacher."

Peter Reiff had already taken a patent on 100 acres in Oley (November 1735) when Jacob Reiff deeded 193 acres on the Little Branch to him in August of 1737. Conrad sold Peter 300 more acres in 1742, certainly the same 300 he had initially acquired in 1730. On April 17, 1745 Peter and his wife Margaret sold the 193 acre Skippack property to John Ulrich Stauffer and went to Oley. Brother George lived in Germantown, but his transactions mimic Peter's. In 1734 he owned 100 acres in Skippack and Jacob deeded him157 acres in 1740. He acquired an adjoining 84 acres from neighbor Casper Ulstar making 241, kept this tract about a year and sold it in 1741 to Jacob Shoemaker. There is no precise record of George's owning land in Oley, but he appears on the tax list of Rockland Township (Oley) in 1757 and 1759. He went a little Oley. According to James Heckler, Jacob the Elder's daughter Catharine, was a widow living in Oley "at the time of her father's death," that is, in 1782. Holy Oley!

There were plenty of Reiffs in trouble in 18th century Philadelphia, especially the four sons of Hans George (c.1659-172 6) and Anna Reiff (1662-1753). The greatest attention attaches to Jacob Reiff, called the Elder, brother of Peter, George, and Conrad, and Anna, but we do not feel sympathy for his plight until we realize his underdog status.

1) His lengthy defense in the Answer (September 1733) to a court complaint against him the previous year is his only extant writing, for he seems to represent himself. He however is quoted frequently in the letters of Boehm.

2) The Wills of Hans George, Conrad and George are extant, with numerous deeds, records of transactions and agreements, formal petitions, newspaper notices and accounts, church records, and tax lists.

3) The Journals of Henry Melichor Muhlenberg is an important primary source for the funeral of Anna Reiff in 1753 and of events in general in Perkiomen (1742-87). Muhlenberg lived in New Providence or Trappe, 8 miles from Skippack where the four Reiff brothers grew up. He traveled extensively in that region and beyond in his service as a pastor, frequently wrote of the common people he met, of their problems, births, baptisms and deaths with names and details. His Journal was kept mainly as a record for himself, but he writes with veracity. Muhlenberg sounds a keynote in remarks in his Journal after the funeral address he gave to a "large and distinguished assembly" on the occasion of the Reiff matriarch's death, January 8, 1753 (I, 353). These reflections are an excellent jumping off point into the labyrinth of civil and religious fratricides of that day.
Anna Reiff, widow of her husband, Hans George, who died in 1726, was one of three women at whose death Muhlenberg presided in the month of January 1753. The journal gives his private thoughts on the course and significance of her life, things he would not have said out loud. These are not the official remarks, except for the biblical text. His thoughts sum up the Reiff brothers' reputations:

"In the same month of January I was called upon to bury a ninety-year-old pious widow who fell asleep in the Lord. She lived eight miles from New Providence and was buried in the so-called Mennonite cemetery. She lived in this land for a long time.” Muhlenberg calls Jacob Reiff, his father's executor of years before, "her best and most reasonable son who cared for her as was right and proper." "At her son's request I visited her in this last home of hers and ministered to her with the Word of God and the Holy Communion."

4) John Phillip Boehm before 1742 in his Letters (1728-1748) gives a wealth of particulars concerning Jacob Reiff, notably his calling the Philadelphia elders “church robbers.”
Continuing the meditation Muhlenberg says, "at her funeral her son, who can discern good as well as evil in others, testified with tears that she had been a pious widow, a domestic preacher, an intercessor, and a model of godliness (I, 353)." If Muhlenberg says Jacob Reiff can discern "good as well as evil" long after the many vicious allegations had passed, we take his judgment after the fact as evidence of exoneration of the many charges against his character.

5) Gottlieb Mittelberger's disgruntled record of his Journey to Pennsylvania (1756) where he had gone in 1752 to become the organist in Muhlenberg's church famously details Conrad Reiff.

George Reiff (1692-1759). The Innocent, we might christen him in contrast with his brothers, was among the elders and the early founders of the Reformed Congregation of Skippack, the first Reformed church in Pennsylvania. This itself is evidence of his concern for a more unworldly way of way of life. With other elders he signed the authorization for his brother Jacob to go Holland with Pastor Weiss to collect the ill-fated funds donated to the Reformed congregations. (Life and Letters of the Rev. John Philip Boehm, 209. He is sometimes confused with his father of the same name. Referring to Dotterer's report of the tradition that Hans Georg Reiff, arrived in Pennsylvania 'before Penn set up his government' " Boehm’s editor, Hinke, mistakes the father for the son, unless we consider the son a junior, saying in the next sentence that "in 1730 Hans Georg Reiff (d. 1726) was a member of the Reformed Church at Skippack" (21). That George had no progeny and seems at all accounts to have been a faithful and steady member of the community should not be held against him. He did sign the two petitions of 1728 and 1731 mentioned below. In 1757, two years before his death, he is taxed for owning land in Oley about eleven miles south of Reading, near Peter and Conrad. It would seem George was allied with Jacob in Muhlenberg's mind as one of the sons well thought of.

Peter Reiff (c.1694-c.1782) was a smith like his father (who however left his smith's tools to Jacob), but although he was the son of Hans George Reiff he managed to confound a generation of genealogists by founding a strain of Riffes in West Virginia. The antecedents of Daniel Boone also lived in Oley (Riffe, 29) and that association according to Riffe was the primary cause of Peter's childrens' southward descent. He did not leave a will but lived in Skippack from youth to sometime after 1745 when, having accumulated 400 acres or so in Oley near his brother Conrad, he moved there.

All three brothers, Conrad, Peter and George, appear on the tax rolls of Oley in 1757, the first year of the organization of that township (Rockland Township). Peter may have lived there some years prior, as perhaps had George. Before moving to Oley Peter was much involved in the area of his father's settlement in Skippack. His first son, Peter Jr. was born there (c. 1728). Peter Sr., with George, Conrad and 74 other inhabitants along Skippack Creek, calling themselves "Back Inhabitors," petitioned then Governor Gordon in April 29, 1728 for protection against the Indians (Riffe, 26). Likewise with George and Conrad, Peter petitioned the Assembly in 1731 to be "permitted to enjoy the rights and privileges of English subjects" (Riffe, 26). Brother Jacob did not sign any of these petitions because he took two trips to Holland etc. in those years. Three of Peter’s children were born in Rockland Township after his relocation, Jacob (1755), Henry (1756) and Daniel (1759) He started a school (c. 1750) and employed a teacher and was as well known to witness wills.

Conrad Reiff

Conrad (1696-c.1777) had two sons, Daniel and Philip, with the rank of Captain and Lieutenant respectively, who maybe fought in revolutionary battles of 1777. Conrad operated a large farm, some 970 acres by 1775, with its own sawmill and gristmill. Based on the 1767 tax assessment Pendleton says he was one of only three men "who did not have to work with their hands" (44). This tax assessment lists 20 acres of grain, a gristmill, sawmill and several tenant farms. He had taken on several indentured servants in 1745 and following. He sued the equally wealthy ironmaster Johannes Lesher in 1766.

He began the move to Oley, buying land there in 1730 and moving in 1733. His two sons Daniel (b.1736) and Philip (b.1739) are registered as being born in Philadelphia County, but at this time Philadelphia County demarked the region. He deeded 300 acres to Peter in 1742 and the two were associated after that date. When the taxes for the new township were assessed in 1759 Conrad paid more than anybody, for he had some 925 acres. There is a spiritual odyssey denoted in his beliefs. At the outset he was Reformed, lived in Skippack, signed the petition of 1728 (and 1731?) and no doubt was included in Boehm's (1730) passionate denunciation of "Jacob Reiff and his brothers" (Letters, 217).

How rich is rich?

Conrad's Organ connects the two protagonists. Reiff willed it to his son Daniel in 1777. At that time "the organ can be considered to have been somewhat of a rarity as a home instrument. Those individuals who did own an organ were often wealthy persons of the community" (Brunner, 10). Conrad Reiff may have inherited the organ from his father-in-law Philip Kuhlwein in 1737, he certainly inherited all of his land. The organ mentioned in the will of Matthias Zimmerman in Philadelphia is of 1734. Conrad Weiser had one prior to 1760 in Tulpehocken (10). A schoolmaster and organist of Old Goschenhoppen c.1779 was paid five pounds a year. A schoolmaster-organist at Trappe, 11 pounds in 1760. Compensation could include other items such as use of the schoolhouse as living quarters, free use of church land, donations of firewood, food and clothing. An average for the middle of the eighteenth century, including playing the organ, free rent, singing at funerals and conducting the singing school was approximately 20 to 25 pounds a year. (Ingenious Bus, 44). Mittleberger got 10 pounds in his last year (43).

Works Cited

Raymond J. Brunner. "That Ingenious Business" Pennsylvania German Organ Builders. Birdsboro, PA: The Pennsylvania German Society, 1990

Chronicon Ephratense. Ephrata, 1786. Tr. By J. Max Hark, Lancaster, 1889.

T. S. Eliot. Four Quartets. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1943.

Ernest, James E. Ephrata A history. Allentown: Schlechter's, 1963.

James Y. Heckler. History of Franconia Township. 1901. Bedminster, PA: Adams Apple Press, 1993.

The History of Harleysville and Lower Salford Township. 1886. Bedminster, PA: Adams Apple Press, 1993.

Glatfelter, Charles H. Pastors and People: German Lutheran and Reformed Churches in the Pennsylvania Field, l7l7-l793. 2 Vols. Breinigsville, PA: The Pennsylvania German Society, l980.

Mittelberger, Gottlieb. Journey To Pennsylvania. Edited and Translated by Oscar Handlin and John Clive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960.

Motherwell, Robert, tr. The Dada Manifesto, in Dada Painters and Poets, NY: 1951.

Journals of Henry Melchior Muhlenberg. The Translated by Theodore G. Tappert and John W. Doberstein. Fortress, 1958. Reprinted by Picton Press, Camden, ME.

The Life and Letters of the Rev. John Philip Boehm. Edited by the Rev. William J. Hinke. Philadelphia: Sunday School Board of the Reformed Church in the United States, 1916.

Pendleton, Philip E. Oley Valley Heritage, The Colonial Years: 1700-1775. Birdsboro, PA: The Pennsylvania German Society, 1994.

Pennypacker, Samuel Whitaker. The Settlement of Germantown Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: William J. Campbell, 1899. Reprinted 1997 by Higginson Book Company, Salem, MA.

The Perkiomen Region. Vols. 1-5. Adams Apple Press, Bedminster, PA, 1994.

Reiff, Harry E. Reiff Families in America. Baltimore: Gateway Press, 1986.

Riffe, Fred J. Reiff to Riffe Family in America. 1995.

Sachse, Julius Friedrich. The German Sectarians of Pennsylvania, 1708-1742. 2 Vols.
Philadelphia: 1899, AMS:1971.

Wallace, Paul. Conrad Weiser: Friend of Colonist and Mohawk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1945.

Weiser, C. Z. The Life of (John) Conrad Weiser. Reading, PA: Daniel Miller, 1899.

George Whitefield's Journals (1737-1741). Gainesville: Scholars' Facsimiles & Reprints, 1969.

Conrad Reiff was probably the last Newborn. We are scheduled to revisit the New Born in the Summer 2011 Berks County Historical Review. Make that, Fall. Actually, it was scratched.

Conrad Gehr's Peccadilloes

A second Newborn afficinado of Oley PA about who much is known. was the nephew of Conrad Reiff, Conrad Gehr.

Conrad Gehr's peccadilloes were 1) that he operated a tavern in Germantown (before 1753). 2) He hosted a mock religious service on Sunday of Newborn blasphemy there and 3) that he had been imprisoned for fraud. In an account in Muhlenberg's Journals (I, 352-3) Conrad Gehr is called the "blasphemer" who "became entangled in a money-making scheme, was caught, and was thrown into prison. There, unbidden, he took up the Bible again."

Conrad Gehr figures prominently in Muhlenberg's writing after the funeral of his wife's mother, Anna Reiff. Gehr's wife, Anna Maria, named for her mother, had been "attached to the Evangelical (Lutheran) Church," which means Muhlenberg perhaps heard firsthand the distress Gehr put his wife through by his behavior. This distress doubled because at that time Anna Maria's mother lived with her daughter and was also subject to these shenanigans. After that she moved and lived to end of her life with her son Jacob. Muhlenberg says:

"During my first years here [1742 and following] she was living with her daughter in Germantown…for the sake of her daughter the distressed old widow stayed at the former's home…she was obliged to listen to many a blasphemous utterance and witness many an offense on the part of her son-in-law, who was Reformed by birth, but in this country not only forsook the Word of God and the other means of grace, but also despised and ridiculed them" (I, 352).

Muhlenberg had three informants on Gehr, Gehr's wife Anna (née Reiff, Hans George's daughter), her mother, Anna, who lived with her, whose funeral Muhlenberg conducted, and George Stoltz, who told of the incident of a fire in the adjoining house.

Muhlenberg stipulates that the "offenses" included, that "the said man maintained a public house and it occurred to him that he might institute a so-called assembly of worship in his house on Sundays. For this purpose he associated himself with a half-educated but totally perverted Christian who was to deliver a sermon or address on physic or natural science at every meeting. The auditors were obligated to pay three pence apiece each time, and this money was to be consumed in drink after the speech" (I, 353). Gehr was the brunt of gossip Muhlenberg had heard: "a trustworthy man named Georg Stoltz came to me and related the following incident. One evening he and a Swiss gentlemen were obliged to stop at the blasphemer's house and put up for the night. He went out of his way to annoy his two guests with sinful talk. Among other things he said that the context of nature is God, that the world came into existence by an accident in eternity, that the universe maintained itself, etc. What the parsons say about God, about a revealed religion, about a Saviour, and about heaven and hell, they have to say to make a living and in order to lead the masses by the nose."

New Born ideas were a metaphysic to this tavern milk, even if it sounds like Paine's Age of Reason (1795) or other enlightenment doctrines. Such attitudes were early 18th century and German, the specific form that Mittelberger, in his Journey to Pennsylvania (1756) singled out against Conrad Reiff. But these were not isolated from other reversals of order in PA, from Wohlfarth and Beissel [of Epherta] standing on the court house steps to argue which day of the week was the sabbath (Sachse, German Sectarians, I, 154) to Gehr's substitution of tavern for church, science for scripture and the price of a drink for the offering. These suggest that the 1701 Blue Law of the General Court of Germantown was not being enforced which said: "no inn-keepers on the first day called Sunday in God's service, shall hold gatherings of guests. . .on pain of whatever penalty the court of record shall inflict" (Pennypacker, Germantown, 283).

Although Muhlenberg does not name it thus, such views easily mask themselves as naturalism. Gehr's satire is very much in the Newborn manner, like Conrad Reiff and those others to whom the sacraments were "ridiculous and their expressions concerning them are extremely offensive" (Muhlenberg), who uttered "such blasphemous words against our Saviour" (Boehm), who theatrically mocked preachers in parody (Mittelberger), who "despise preachers, churches and sacraments without discrimination" (Muhlenberg), who scoff that manure is life and pig the destiny of the soul. The Newborn catechism was as active in the tavern of Gehr as in the township of Oley except that Gehr went his brother-in-law one better and mixed the scoff with drink.

Tavern philosophy is reported in practically every contemporary account of the Newborn. Gehr's metaphysic implicates both brother and brother-in-law in the Newborn practice. While Boehm's summary of the sects names Puritans, Baptists and Pietists it is really the Newborn of Gehr's metaphysic that he exposes:

"Independents, Puritans, Anabaptists, Newborn, Saturday-folks, yea even the most horrible heretics, Socinians, Pietists, etc., among whom dreadful errors prevail; indeed heinous blasphemies against our great God and Savior and their own exaltation over His Majesty; for they claim that they have essential divinity in themselves; that they cannot sin…they believe there is no other heaven or hell than what is here on earth; they even deny Divine Providence, and assert that nothing needs God's blessing, but that all products of the ground and all offspring of animals and of the human race, come simply from nature, without any care on the part of God, and that prayer also is useless. (Life and Letters, (1728) 161."

Oley and the Newborn influenced Conrad Reiff, brothers Peter and George and Jacob's daughter Catherine, all who either lived there or owned land there. Spiritually the effects of Oley were more serious upon Conrad Reiff's mother and sister (Anna Maria and Anna) through the aforesaid sister's husband Conrad Gehr. The connection between Gehr and Conrad Reiff involves Gehr's experience of the Newborn, which is as important as Conrad's because they flesh out the satirical Newborn beliefs and show the influence in the family. Genealogist Harry Reiff says the "family knew about Conrad's (Gehr) peccadilloes, as indicated in the will of Hans George's son, George (d.1759), who died leaving a legacy to nephew Baltazar with an admonition not to permit his father, Conrad Gehr, to have any of the legacy" (Letter of 2/13/2002).

The conflicted Balthaser Gehr, son of Anna Reiff II and Conrad Gehr, (mentioned in PA supreme court case, (see genealogy here) also probably attended these views, but he had fiduciary and legal care of his cousin Philip Reiff, Conrad’s son, from 1786 to his death in 1815. Sort of like the son of the innkeeper in the Fellowship of the Ring, Balthaser Gehr (cf. Pendleton, 137, 147) married the daughter of that equally wealthy neighbor of Conrad Reiff, Antony Jaeger. In 1767 Jaeger's "sons Daniel and Henry, and his son-in-law Balthaser Gehr were tried for assault and battery on the Jaegers' lifelong neighbor, miller Heinrich Kerst. A neighbor, Jacob Silvious, also stood trial for coming to Kerst's defense" (Pendleton, 147). As said, Balthaser exercised a power of attorney for his infirm cousin, Philip Reiff, second son of Conrad, in 1786 (Pendleton, 137). But in more outbreaks of the lawless, Baltes too went Oley.

The disposition of another son of Gehr, Philip, is unknown, who appears in the ledger of the Old Salford Store (c. 1766-1774), reported as, "Gehr, Philip; Conrad Gehr's son of Germantown" (John R. Tallis, The Perkiomen Region, II, 33). Conrad Gehr is also mentioned near the bottom of the will of Hans George Reiff (d. 1726), in a different handwriting than the will reads: "Cunrad Gehr married Anna," (Riffe, 20), suggesting this was written after probate. Gehr had been issued a patent by the land office for 34 acres in the Salfords in 1735, the same year as Garrett Clemens, Christopher Dock, Peter Wentz and Hans Reiff, among others (H. W. Kriebel in The Perkiomen Region, V, 11), but Heckler speculates he possibly was there confused with Conrad Custer (Heckler, Lower Salford, I, 13). Gehr had at least two sons. Baltazar, or Baltes Gehr served in the Pennsylvania legislature. He is mentioned in his uncle's will, (George Reiff) in 1759, "my will is after my sister's son Baltes should set up his trade, my wife shall give him twenty pounds to buy tools for it" (Riffe, 28). It should be noted that Anna was not called Anna Maria as her full name is suggested to be, but merely Anna, like her mother, who signed Anna in the Landes will and on the board in the attic.
There was also a Peter Gehr, d. 12 May 1764 at Ephrata Cloister mentioned in Chronicon (131).

Matthias Baumann (1675-1727)

It shows what a small world this is if Boehme knew Matthias Baumann, Newborn founder, in the old world before any of this happened. to balance the equation we show Baumann's doings as we did above with Boehme.

Matthias Baumann (1675-1727) was a prophet against the church. He wrote Call in 1723, about 22 years after the experience he reports. It wasn't it printed in Philadelphia by Bradford or Franklin, but was sent to Germany. The ms. was received at the printer in 1730 and published 1731, probably by his associate Philip Kulhwein. Baumann, died 1727. Baumann visited Conrad Beissel in 1721 who accounts this visit in Chronicon, giving eye witness of Baumann's debates in Philadelphia in Call. Written as an ongoing journal from year to year from extensive notes used to guide its writing Chronicon was published in 1786, but which reads as accurate and veracious.

Baumann was a Dadaist stinging into consciousness. It’s probably not safe to write about the Newborn even after they’ve been dead 300 years, whose attitude is as if they were founding an anarchic caliphate, but then it’s hardly safe to write about any virile religion. Partisans will stir. That extends from the Seventh Day Baptists of Conrad Beissel to the German Reformed precursors of the United Church today. Proponents were supercharged. The doings of Matthias Baumann did not comply with religious and social expectations. It's a little dangerous to sting the masses.

Baumann more or less affronted Ben Franklin, Conrad Beissel, Muhlenberg, magistrates, Zinzendorf, and John Phillip Boehm in a theatrical controversy like Gulliver’s fictional yahoo throwing excrement from the trees. Swift is a symbolic Pennsylvanian, and we can't stop short of calling Gulliver’s travels an allegory of the Journey to Pennsylvania.

Bauman’s religious views were exaggerations of the theology of the new birth. He was judged sincere by Conrad Beissel’s Chronicon (18), but his followers were tavern philosophers and road preachers, merchants of a liberine naturalism. Baumann offended all Pennsylvania religions in a time when extremes were a norm. Conrad Weiser burned the Heidelberg Catechism and death threats among believers (from Zinzendorf against Weiser) were as common as modern charismatic TBN fringes. [See Pennsylvania Lawless.]

Baumann had an experience that visionaries continue to copy, caught up to the third heaven.Like moths drawn to the flame they have trouble returning to earth. We have already discerned the part Conrad Reiff and Arnold Huffnagel played in the New Born report of Gottlieb Mittelberger. Conrad Reiff married the daughter of Philip Kuhlwein, brother-in-law of Matthias Baumann and ended up inheriting Baumann’s lands, given first to Kuhlwein.

That whole section of Oley was known as enemy territory. Muhlenberg has five references, as late as 1755, of lawlessness in Oley long after others say the New Born were dead.

The character in Mittelberger who gets up and mocks the crowd with raving sarcasm and mockery, or the tavern philosophy of the libertine Philip Gehr upbraided by Muhlenberg are good examples.

A more analytical account given in the lost work of Weiss, pastor of the infamous Reiff church is the first report about the Newborn (1729) and the second extant publication of press of Andrew Bradford. Weiss quotes the New Born farmer as celebrating manure as his deity. You would have to go all the way to England to hear such talk today. Pennsylvania lawlessness was a fertile ground for such ideas. Preachers were less than farmers, Mittelberger complained. The outlaws threatened to burn the preachers, crash the weddings, disrupt the services. There was as little law and order as there was duly ordained religious structure, till about 1750.

Beissel and Baumann

From Chronicon Ephratense (1786): "There arose about that time [1721] a people in the neighborhood of Oley in Berks County, who called themselves the Newborn, and had one Matthias Baumann as their founder. Their profession was that they could not sin anymore. In a pamphlet of 35 pages, 8vo, printed in Germany, and entitled "A Call to the Unregenerate World," it sounds wonderful to hear Baumann say, on page 13: 'Men say that Christ hath taken away sin; it is true in my case, and of those who are in the same condition in which Adam was before the fall, as I am,'--where he places himself by the side of Adam before his fall. And on page 16 he makes a still bolder leap when he says: 'As Adam was before the fall, so have I become, and even firmer.' But what provoked people most was what he says on page 12: 'With the body one cannot sin before God but only before men and other creatures, and these the Judge can settle,' from which they drew dangerous conclusions. They boasted that they had only been sent by God to confound men, a work which they also diligently carried on during ten years, so that their disputations at market times in Philadelphia were often heard with astonishment, where also Baumann once offered, in order to prove that his doctrine was from God, to walk across the Delaware river.

In their journeys through Conestoga, where they here and there found acceptance, they finally also came to the Superintendent, [Conrad Beissel] where Baumann commenced about the new birth. The Superintendent gave him little satisfaction, telling him to smell of his own filth, and then consider whether this belonged to the new birth; whereupon they called him a crafty spirit full of subtility, and departed. It was ob served that from this time on they lost all power to spread their seductions any further, which finally died out with their originators. The Baumann spoken of died about the year 1727. He is said otherwise to have been an upright man, and not to have loved the wrold inordinately; but Kuehlenwein, Jotter, and other followers of his were insatiable in their love of the world." (16-18. Translated by Max Hark, 1889)

From Nancy Cardoso Pereira. The body as a hermeneutical category (2002):

"For many centuries the importance of the body, of matter, has been devalued. Importance has always been given to the human "soul" or, in another generalizing view, a person's place in the socio-political structure and the economy. But history shows that the body has always been the main locus of the oppression and appropriation of women, as it has also been with other oppressed groups (for example indigenous and black peoples): this has been done through rape, aggression, denial, abuse, manipulation, idealization. For this very reason, the body cannot be considered as a mere side-issue in any reading of the Bible which asks questions about gender relations. Life and death manifest themselves through the body. Restoring the physical body to its rightful place is a fundamental part of our affirmation of a real and sensual life." [restoration of the body, resurrection of the body]

Religious arguments as rhetoric are as taken with the sensational as broadcast news. The most quoted statement of Baumann subsequently is that "those who are in the same condition in which Adam was before the fall, as I am." What he could mean other than drama is anybody's guess since what Adam was before the fall is a tad speculative. Try Adam on Venus in Perelandra.

See Sachse on the Newborn: The German Sectarians of Pennsylvania 1708-1742 p 73f.

John Joseph Stoudt. Count Zinzendorf and the Pennsylvania Congregation of God in the Spirit:The First American Oecumenical Movement, 1940. m. Baumann. in Church History, Dec 1940 http://www.jstor.org/pss/3160914

Baumann's Life

If any of this sounds the right note in our ear today if shows have far we have come and gone in these matters.

1. I was seized by a shuddering or shivering

I, Matthies Baumann, now in America, was a poor day-laborer and helper in Lambsheim in Palatinate, in Europe. In June of 1701 I was seized by a shuddering or shivering like that of a man who has succumbed to a heavy sickness, and I gave myself over to God, and I was quit of the world so that I said to God that I would gladly die.

As I lay on the bed I no longer knew anything of myself and I was as one who would have passed on gladly, although then I knew nothing of this, as my wife tells me. On the fifth day I was beyond myself and I was drawn into heaven and I had word from God that I was to tell men that they should be converted for the last day was coming. And then I extended one call after another for a whole hour:

O ye children of men, be converted! The last day is at hand!

And my wife says that she thought that I was delirious. And when I stopped calling out I was soon beyond myself again for I heard Him say to me again:

Man thinks that he lives by the light of day, but he is turned about in night!

Then I asked, How are they to live? I was told, According to the New Testament. And this lasted for one day or fourteen, and the last time I was beyond myself it lasted for twenty-four hours and my wife says that she often thought that I was dead, that she did not know if there was any breath left in me. And she says further that I lay there for twenty-four hours moving neither hands nor feet, ever lying as if dead so that she was expecting the end momently and was waiting to put the shroud on me. Then however I came back to my body again and I was as sound without as within.

And I had a command from God to tell men to be converted. So I sent for the Reformed pastor (for at that time I bore the name Reformed) to come and tell me what it was that God had commanded me. But the pastor did not wish to come, saying that he was not feeling well. Then I remained in bed, but not for long. Matters were so good with me now as they never had been before all my life, and at this time God's goodness came over me, which has never changed since then, and I marveled what God had done for a miserable man like me. I entered the sickness an old man; I arose a new one. [The first one he sent for to tell to be converted was the Reformed pastor.]

2. I got up and went to the pastor's. I looked so badly that the children ran after me

I got up and went to the pastor's. I looked so badly that the children ran after me as they follow a courtesan and the people stared at me when I approached the parsonage. And when I arrived at the parsonage i did not knock but entered the house directly, [entering directly is his style] through the door into the drawing room. The pastor and his wife were frightened. He had just prayed for me in the church and here I come into his room like one of the dead.

I began by saying that God had sent me back into the world to tell men to be converted and that I soon would die. The pastor thought that I was out of my mind and handed me a world[ly] book which was to drive these ideas out of my head. This so hurt me that I only cried out and whined the more, saying that men did not comprehend what was for their own good, as I had been ordered to tell them.

When a man in his first birth wants to pray all sorts of thoughts enter him. I know, for I began the Lord's Prayer three or four times and could not bring it to God without other thoughts popping into my head. And now God has so made me that if I would think of the world God draws me away to the other side so that I cannot pull away from Him. As previously I could not come to God so now I cannot depart from Him.

As far as my sickness is concerned, it happened to me so that I might show you where I got whereof I write and teach. My doctrines are not from man or through man; God Himself has taught me; I am nothing else than a Christian

. A Christian is born of God and he who is born of God cannot sin. And God therefore has sent me into the world to show men how they may come to Him again.

A Christian is born of God and he who is born of God cannot sin. And God therefore has sent me into the world to show men how they may come to Him again. What Adam lost Christ restored in me. Therefore can I write and speak about it. If he had not made me so I would be like other people who are yet in sin. For I too was in it but now I know why Christ has come into the world. Out of grace he made me free so that I truthfully can say that He who Christ makes free is free indeed.

And, as I had been told that man is to live after the New Testament, I shall explain the ground of the New Testament is this: I will put my law within them, reciting it in their hearts; and I will be a god to them, and they to me a people, no longer shall they have to teach their fellows, each instructing each, how to know the Eternal, for they all shall know me, both the great and the small. This is the testament I will make with them when their sins are taken away. Therefore Christ came into the world to free them from sin. This is the ground of the New Testament.

Christians without Christ

There are many people in the world who call themselves Christian who are all Christians without Christ. You have to understand that a Christian has to be born of God. And he that is born of God cannot sin; and you are sinners and shall remain sinners until the spiritual death. Is this not what the lord said to me: they think that they live in day but they are turned about in the night?

4. Come to me, all persons in the whole world, be ye pious or impious;

Come to me, all persons in the whole world, be ye pious or impious; if you be free from original sin then Christ has come into you. He who says that God has come into his flesh is an anti-Christ. Examine yourselves and where you do not find that Christ has come into you, and made you free of sin, do not then give yourselves out as Christians. [The biggest part of Baumann's corrective is against those who claim they are Christians, viz. that the church is the unregenerate.]

World Overwhelms

Listen to what you have to do! There is but one sin which Adam committed. He died unto God in spirit. And this is what all persons get from Adam: [not from Eve!] they have died unto God. This they could learn to know if they would learn something when they approach God in prayer. [that is, they could learn to know they have died to God because] Then the world overwhelms them so that they cannot keep to God as long as one Lord's Prayer lasts without other thoughts entering. [this fleeting concentration is an unusual proof of experience] Man is to love God with whole heart and with all his energies; he is dead unto God and still is to love Him! This he cannot do.

The natural man knows nothing of the life that comes from God. This is the sort of worship that all sects teach; they all say that man is to keep himself devout and become acceptable to God by a good life. I do not despise devout living, thinking it to be no good; devout living has to do with a Christian too! But a Christian knows that even a heathen can be a devout man. They do not know what original sin is. This is true! Christ came only for original sin. He said that he came into the world as a light and he who believes in Him shall not remain in darkness. Now, those who call themselves Christian and say they believe on Him and still remain sinners--all this is wrong and belongs to the first birth.

5. Man simply and merely must be a poor sinner as he ignores God and knows Him not; he is to love Him and God is to be his treasure and yet he is dead to Him.

Man simply and merely must be a poor sinner as he ignores God and knows Him not; he is to love Him and God is to be his treasure and yet he is dead to Him. And all this in fact shall make him into a poor sinner, for it is said: Come unto me all ye that are weary and heavy laden and I will give you rest. Man is to become a poor sinner just because of original sin. Therefore he should pray ceaselessly that God will give Himself unto him and reveal Himself unto him and take up His abode in him and regenerate him. [he should pray unceasingly, however he cannot focus to the end of the Lord's Prayer!] If God does not first show Himself to man, and come to him, man cannot love Him.

As far as the outer evil life is concerned, man dares not pray; all he can do is to live devoutly and this he can do if he but will. But if I am to love God and if I know Him not it si necessary that I first pray that He make Himself known unto me so that I may come to love Him. [this was not Baumann's case. He was overwhelmed by something he did not seek. Religious literature is filled with the travail of those who have sought God, Charles Finney's agonies come to mind, but that is not the instance of irresistible grace that happened to Baumann] If someone were to write me that I should love him, and if I had never in my whole life seen him, I would know nothing more bvasic than to reply that he should first come to see me so that i could get toknow him, otherwise it would be impossible to love him. Although I see other persons around and cannot approach those whom I do not know, how much less will I be able to love God, because died unto Him and I am Adam's child?

With the body we cannot sin before God, only before people and other creatures; [quoted in Chronicon as the proof of Baumann's error] this the judge can correct. Adam did not do evil with the body; he performed spiritual sin; he died to God. And Christ announced a spiritual righteousness and warned us against spiritual sin. We have to hold as sin the spiritual sin we have inherited.

Men say: Christ has taken sin away. This is true as far as I am concerned. He who finds himself so is as Adam was before the fall; as I am. Christ took no sins away but God spoke through Him in no other way than He speaks through me. If Christ had taken sins away He would not have said: strive to get through the narrow door, for I tell you, many will try to get in and not be able. Here you hear that He has not taken sin away but just announced what we have to do to gain the new birth. if He had taken sin away it would not be necessary for us to strive to become blessed. [This is obviously confused as he contradicts what he says above. It is important to verify the translation.]

6. Christ announced the will of God to the people of that time in the same way that I announce it to people in these times, how they may be quit of sin.

Christ announced the will of God to the people of that time in the same way that I announce it to people in these times, how they may be quit of sin. He is the first-born among the few brethren of this time. Man must be ever dying until he comes with Christ to the Cross, dying to his first nature. Just as Christ felt pain outwardly in His flesh, so I must feel it in my mind. And insofar as man holds it sinful that he forgets [137] God, so he will ever be a poor sinner and can pray without ceasing. The fault is his for he is ever forgetting God.

But this is not how people think about sin. They commit sin. They pray about it. Then, man thinks, God is merciful, He forgives me. Then the pain passes, he believes, until he sins again with something bad. And this goes on as long as he lives and he never comes to God or to the new birth. If you would be blessed you have to go the way which God lets be announced through me, otherwise you shall not become holy. He who does not thus humble himself before God, as I write here, can never come to peace.

Allo people want to look at Christianity from the outside and they are far blinder than the Jews because they boast of Christ and do not share Him anymore than Jews and heathen. And they know nothing about the inward ground, and this is the great blindness. It is not meaningless that I heard it said, when I was enraptured, "man thinks that he lives by the light of day, but he is all turned about in the night." He who beasts that he is a Christian and does not find complete change within him, as I write I am, he is an anti-Christ. He who wants to see a Christian must look within himself, or he shall not find one. Christ's congregation is invisible; it is a spiritual congregation. What I announce cannot be seen with these carnal eyes nor heard with these carnal ears. Everything is of the spirit. He who has ears, let him hear, he who can understand it, understands.

A Christian has one death behind him and he has come into life and is resurrected with Christ and now dwells with Him in the heavenly places. There are only two kinds of people in the world: one from Adam, the other from Christ. When a person is born he stands in Adam's fall, however devout he may be. As long as a person still fears God he stands in Adam's fall. Before Adam had eaten of the fruit of the tree he did not fear God, rather he loved Him and had fellowhip with Him. And as Adam was before the fall, so have I been made--and better! For Adam gained God as an enemy and I shall keep Him as my Friend to all eternity. Satan could not have done better for his kingdom than to create denominations. When one leaves one denomination and goes into another and still remains as pious as before, he deems that he is closer to the kingdom of God than before: A thousand denominations may come along and be as holy as they will and think they cannot fail; they have the best and all others are false--all this strengthens the devil's domain because all denominations are sinful and stand within his domain. Withe their mouths most pious confess that they are poor sinners; and this lasts their entire lives; but in their hearts they are Pharisees.

Listen to what the Master says: Two men went to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax-gatherer. The Pharisee prayed by himself and thanked God that he was not evil like the rest of men and like the tax-gatherer. But the tax-gatherer beat his breast and said: "O God, have mercy on me for my sins!" he tax-gatherer went home accepted rather than the other man. Here you hear that he was quit of sin. And when you too find yourselves like the tax-gatherer, then shall you likewise go to your houses accepted like the poor tax-gatherer or else all your speech is lies when you say you are poor sinners. Only that counts before God which comes from Him. You pray that God's Kingdom is to come among you and that His Will is to be done on earth as in heaven. This has been fulfilled in me. the kingdom of heaven is within me. And God's Will is that I again have what died in Adam; he died unto God!

Now as God's spirit bears witness in my spirit, God has become quickened [138] within me again. No one knows this except he who has the new birth from God. People think that they are Christians and if they but live devoutly they will come to Heaven; but the poor people do not know that they are dead to God. When a person becomes sick he thinks if only he had not done this or that he could die in peace. This comes about because people know no better nor are they taught any better.

7. Ye poor people! Christianity is not something as you think which can be taught, as all denominations in the world seem to think.

Ye poor people! Christianity is not something as you think which can be taught, as all denominations in the world seem to think. They think that they can teach their children to be as they are--and this they can, too! But Christians cannot. Christians may tell their children where and how man ma come to God but the child must find out himself that he is blind else God cannot make him see. He himself must be sure that he is lost before the can seek the true way. Each person himself must go through the narrow gate and along the small way. This way is not as people usually thinks. They think that through outer persecution, or by being despised, or that a person cheerfully bears all things, or by enduring all things from others for the sake of religion--this they think is the small way by which they mean to get to heaven! [this is a parody, somewhat true of Mennonite beliefs] But the small way and narrow gate of a Christian is this: to be condemned unto death so that he also says: "My God, why has Thou forsaken me?" He has to destroy the poor tabernacle and lift up the Cross! Listen how you have to go the narrow way!

You must discover that you lack God in your heart and you must call upon the unknown God that He shall make Himself manifest within you so you can come to love Him. Then you will go the narrow way and if you remain steadfast God soon will let you feel it and you no longer will doubt what the narrow way is. And still it will happen to you that you say, as Christ said, "My God! Why has thou forsaken me?" You will think that God does not want you, that you are finished and must perish! Then you will know and experience what the narrow way is and you will say that never in your whole life have you ever had greater pain than now. this is the time when life and death contend. If man then remains constant and thinks that even if he be lost he still will not forsake God then, presently, God will bear him anew and take up His abode in him.

Then, when man has come from death into life, what God has done to him he will announce to all. Then he will know what Christ's regeneration is. You think you are newly born. One thinks he became so when he was baptized as a child, another thinks the became so when he was baptized as an adult and has become somewhat more devout than when he was a youth, a third thinks that he has to keep righteous as the Scripture says and he busies himself day and night to keep these things, and if he keeps one he breaks another and so he is nothing else than a poor sinner. And if he breaks nothing he still has no guilty conscience before God, he does not know how often he hails in word and thought and is a sinner before God. Still he believes that he is better than he who does evil and he thinks that he can become blessed like another, thus living in false hope. In sum, people believe than they are right and they do not believe than man can experience God here in the flesh, that man can become sure and certain that he can sin no more. So God may call as much as He wants, men still stay choked up and do not believe. He that has ears to hear, let him hear!

When you, dear reader, examine yourself and do not find it as I here write than you believe that I must be in error and you think that I lie and you ask God to protect you form such pride. Also you will say: Test all spirits and see whether they be of God. Those of whom this was said were free from sin. A person still unregenerate and in sin cannot test spirits as he is in darkness. If he wants to rest his heart he will find the devil as god: I shall give you better advice! His mind must change from the world to God and he must think that he has to see whether he can see, and become seeing, so that he may know wherefrom each one comes. Then may he test! Before the new birth all that man does is blind. You think you are Christian and re-born; but you all have a rotten redeemer who cannot properly cleanse you. He is not from heaven but from below. the true Redeemer is from above; therefore also He can free you from sin.

Now listen, you teachers who teach people, what poor human beings you are! God does not select any from among the denominations, no matter what name they bear. All in the world stand in one condition before God. Although one denomination may appear better than the other, all are outside of God. Where a true spirit teaches, he knows where he comes from: his doctrine, which God reveals to him proceeds into the inner man and points to the true Source.

And when hearers have ears to hear they believe what has been said in the spirit and they keep themselves to God and as soon as the listener experiences an appearance of God thereafter the Spirit need say no more. Where Christ is the teacher no human beings are needed. Christ says: "My sheep hear my voice." Human doctrines last only until man becomes Christian, then he has another teacher. You think you are Christian; yet you still let yourselves be taught. John says: "the unction you received remains within you", and you really need no teaching from anyone. I do not write that you need no teachers; you do need teachers to tell you where God is to be found. But the teachers first must have found Him themselves. When a blind man shows someone the way they both fall into the ditch. And so the whole world is misled; they teach (and learn) more and more and never come to knowledge of truth. So with them all learning is nought.

8. I also believe in a congregation here in this world which is not made of patches and chips but which is made holy and righteous.

I also believe in a congregation here in this world which is not made of patches and chips but which is made holy and righteous. Those yet in sin have no part with those who are redeemed as long as they do not cleave to God. Dogs keep outside! They may look as pious as they want, they still will not get to heaven for only that gets to heaven which comes from heaven and that is Christ. And he who does not beget Christ within him never will get to heaven, be he as pious as he may.

Here I show you only what I have received from the Grace of God and I tell you what a Christian is so each one may examine himself and see how he stands and whether Jesus is his Redeemer and has redeemed him. He who will test what I here teach about God will find that what I say is truth. All of God's will is contained in this writing, the entire ground of Old and New Testaments. To read books in order to find the way to heaven is vain. Most o f those who have written books were themselves not redeemed. If you do want to read, they read the prophets, how they foretold how God in the last days would raise up His own people. The same is true of the New Testament.

It is written that no unclean thing shall enter the New Testament; and again that the Lord will judge when He shall say, Come here, ye righteous, and ye sinners, go ye to damnation. Seek ye all the time your Redeemer and ye shall find Him and become inwardly certain that this is God's voice which now goes forth among men. And when he through such evil people, bears such great love to them and us (and perhaps you) then you surely will believe that God speaks through me. And all those who have tasted the sweetness of God will have to say that this is truly God's Spirit and not of man.

For these 22 years I have had to say where peace was to be found wherever I was among men. But men love darkness more than light, they will not believe. John says: the withered and unbelieving are cast into the fire; therefore all is based on faith. He who believes and is not constrained to doubt, he shall come to speak of great miracles which God can do. He who does not believe may read all books and hear all the preachers who do not speak or write as God's voice here is given forth. All of them preach and write books out of the night. As long as a person has not yet been redeemed from sin he had not been sent by God to teach; he is of night and would teach the day. This he cannot do. From where a person is sent, that manner he has in him. I have been sent by God and He has made me from from sin. Now, they say that God has sent them, and they are sinners! Sin is of the devil! John says: the devil sins from the beginning. This is why the son of God appeared: to destroy the devil's work. Now hear! He who is yet in sin, in him Christ has not yet destroyed the devil's work; also, he comes from the devil too! You must look to the ground on which all depends and you have to say that you have never read a book in your whole life like the present writing. In this the will of God is fashioned, what God would have from man. When man yields himself to God He does not throw up his sins to him; He just says: Come, I will refresh you; I will give peace to your souls. When a person gains this new witness God teaches him what he is to do outwardly. He knows himself and God directs him. He who has been so made that the law has been written in his heart no longer needs to fear that he will do evil. God has made him a person who lives according to his law and keeps it.

No one should understand this writing as if I condemned anyone. I have just shown what God has done o me and what He asks of man. Had He not given it to me out of Grace, I then would be as you for I too knew no better. There will be many who will say that I am proud, this the Pharisees also Called Christ when He said that God was His Father and that He knew God. He who has not Christ's Spirit is not His own. The stranger this writing is to a person, the farther he is from God. For no one in the old state will fully understand it because it is written in the new. God calls many persons to repentance but many people go in by a crooked by-way and want to grow into it by an outwardly pious life. And then they grow high-minded and think that heaven cannot fail them. Yet they are so far from God as if they were in evil ways. When God calls a person to repentance he must keep himself from everything except the unknown God that He may let Himself become known unto him. Further, he dare not think, for example, how this or that scriptural phrase is to be understood. Rather, he should always think: how does this apply to me? I believe that I have come to know God before I die and so I shall cleave to Him as ling as I live. Here all disputation ends and Satan can do no more with such a man because he wants only God. Were God to cast him into hell he would bear it with patience. When a person lives in [143] this condition God surely will bear him anew and he will know why Christ came.

8. I also believe in a congregation here in this world which is not made of patches and chips but which is made holy and righteous.

9. I have written all that a person has to do if he is to gain the best and never depart therefrom. Why God's Voice seems strange to you is because you stand in the first birth.

I have written all that a person has to do if he is to gain the best and never depart therefrom. Why God's Voice seems strange to you is because you stand in the first birth. You think you cannot fail; you have been born again; if you only live devoutly you will go to heaven; you may be as devout as you wish, you are still a sinner. Right you are! A person may be as devout as he wishes--in his self-centered piety--he is still a sinner. But God dwells in a Christian, therefore he can sin no more. He who has not Christ's Spirit is not His own. Noting is wanting to this person except the new birth--and that is everything. As they do not have this they know nothing of the Kingdom of God; they may be learned, literarily, as they will, the heavenly sense is foolishness to them and they cannot comprehend it.

He who contradicts this writing saying that it is not right, contradicts not me but God. This is not my doings, but God's. Let no one think that I have written this out of my understanding and foolishness. Rather God does this in me because He gladly would have men dwell with Him. So the love of God drives me to it; I write and speak at God's command what His Will is. Nor let anyone think this new doctrine. This is the doctrine which Chris st brought into the world. The dear God gave it tome out of Grace. And because you are still in the first state which you got from Adam this seems to be new doctrine to you. If you come into the new birth you will not say that this is new doctrine but yo9u will say that you now no longer believe for you have heard the Lord Himself. This is how I write, and a lot more, so I cannot bring it to light as it stands. For no one knows it except he who receives it. It is written that they all shall be taught of God, and this is fulfilled in those who have been born again. He no longer needs human teachers. When God comes into a person he no longer hungers and thirsts, he is everlastingly satisfied by God so he does nothing but praise and honor God. Rather, he does not do it but God's Spirit does it in him.

All that Christ and His apostles commanded has become vast idolatry. What people think the best has become the vilest. First, baptism. Here a person is taught for the most part that when they receive it they are Christian. Second, the Holy Communion. Here a person believes, when he goes to it and says or thinks that his sins are evil, even then he does not mean to forsake them, that he is better off than if he had not gone. third, church attendance. Here a person thinks that if he dutifully goes to church, listens attentively, he is better than if he did not go. Fourth, prayer. If he does something bad he prays to God and then, he thinks, God is gracious to him again. Fifth, devout living. Here he thinks that if he just lives devoutly he will die blessedly. Sixthly, giving alms to the poor. Here he thinks that if he give alms to the poor he will get a great reward in heaven. If he knew he would get nothing thereby, he would give much less. Seventh, fasting. Here many think that if they injure the flesh, eating and drinking noting, they are acceptable to God.

These are the seven ideas which people have about worship. All this is an abomination before God. Still, it is the best that they mean to do and it only serves the devil. Now I shall give you the truth about these seven points, how they count before God.

First, baptism. This was signification or oath that a person renounced the world and accepted God. The is that on which I, from my childhood days, have put my mind and where my satisfaction rested. This is the whole with whom each person has wiled away the time of his life. He has been born so as to take the world as his treasure, and now he signifies to God that he has died to Adam. When he is baptized he no longer has the freedom to put his mind into the world; he has promised himself to another Lord. Then the devil soon comes to him and says: see, you have sworn yourself to God and yet your mind is centered on the world, as before. Then a person has nothing else to do but to pray that God will baptize him with fire, or make him new born--it is the same. Fire-baptism makes the Christian and I may cite as an example for when He had been baptized [144] the devil tempted Him. And He answered the devil and bowed Himself in deepest humility to God; so shall we also do. As the devil attacked Him, so he attacks. This follows true baptism.

Second, Holy Communion. It is necessary that this be celebraed every day so that I recall the baptismal covenant and wait for the coming of the Lord. This is the baptism of fire, to hold communion with Him and He with me. I shall keep communion with Him: I die to Him. This is the best communion.

Third, church-going. When a Christian teaches and can say how God has redeemed him, how he dwells in fellowship with God, and how he acquired the new heart and spirit; when he is in possession of all that the prophets have written about all the Lord purposes for His people in the last tiems; then he needs no sermons for he is taught by God Himself. Then one Christian may teach Christian how he shall humble himself before God so he may gain God. So hearers have to go the narrow way too, as Christ went. This is true church-going.

fourth, prayer in spirit and truth. i have to feel in my heart that I need God; He must be my treasure; and I cannot come to Him when I want to, so I displease Him. Therefore must I pray only for God Himself. This is praying in spirit and truth.

Fifth, devout living which counts before God is something other than what people believe. All that a person does before conversion he does to go to heaven. He has a wicked heart and yet wants to be devout; and this is an abomination before God. Christ says: a good tree bears good fruit and and evil tree evil fruit. Therefore he would say: see to it that you become a good tree, that is that you keep yourself to God and see whether God will receive you in Grace and make you newly born. He says: no good tree can bear evil fruit. This means that a new-born person cannot sin. Also, plant an evil tree and the fruit will be evil. That means that good and evil are within you. You have inherited the knowledge of good and evil; you are to be either good or evil. No person can be good unless he be newly born; and no pserson can be completely evil as long as he lives, for some good remains even after Adam's fall. If man still did not retain some good in him he could not be newly born.
When you are made good then the good tree can bear good fruit by itself. This is the true devout life.

Sixth, almsgiving to the poor. Christ says, what you have done unto the least of these my brethren you have done unto me. Christi's brethren are those who have been newly born and who can sin no more. When a person gives something to those who still are sinners then nothing is to be expected therefrom. If, however, one does good to someone, believing that he is a brother of Christ, then he give vitality for him to become a brother of Christ. He shall not remain unrewarded but shall gain the new birth. This is the best almsgiving.

Seventh, he who finds that God is wanting within him, and who is truly ill in spirit, he will bring himself to fast so that he cannot eat. Christ said, He came only for the sake of the sick. This is true fasting.

SOURCE: The tract was printed in Berleburg, 1730, and reprinted in the Pietist periodical edited by Dr. Carl, Die Geistliche Fama Stück vi, 1731, pp. 9-12. All Scriptural references have been omitted. (Translated, J.J.S

Newborns in the Cradle of Liberty, Oley 1720—

(something like this would have appeared as a sequel in Berks Co. Review is the editor had not changed)

In Sachse, German Sectarians, I, 209

Newborns in the Cradle of Liberty, Oley 1720—Revised /Dec 2011

The Philadelphia Snort

“Philadelphians snort that a building in Boston—Faneuil Hall, should be called “the cradle of liberty” just because James Otis gave a fiery anti-British speech there in 1761. How can you compare that to a city where the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States were drafted, debated, revised, and signed—both in a brief period of eleven years?” Gary B. Nash

The Newborn of Oley are more about politics than religion. The sweet and bitter ideas of founder Matthias Baumann, Newborn founder from Lambsheim, charmed and antagonized his time. His followers put these views into practice with such gracelessness and rancor they underwrote the formation of liberty. Newborns squalled all the way from Oley and Berks County into Philadelphia. Die Neu-geboren focused on “confounding men.” starting Baumann's “principle [in 1705] that magistrates had no authority in matters of conscience, an early instance of separation of church and state” (Stoudt. Sunbonnets 51). The extremes of speech with which he challenged social order in Pennsylvania became beliefs transferred to a state that prepared guarantees for all citizens of their rights of free speech and practice.

This virulence, combined with its toleration, contributed mightily to the notion of liberty that entered Jefferson's language in his writing, but Baumann’s ideas also confronted the prejudice of Gnostic oriented sects against the body, that is against women. Finally, his “hallucinatory perfectionism” was influential in later revivals of Charles Finny, and the rise of evangelicalism, all of which marks out a territory of the Newborn far greater in influence that their number.

1. Freedom of Speech

Call dates itself by twice referring to 22 years since Baumann had a mind numbing overwhelming experience in 1701. Ad hominium attacks against him then and since pass over in silence that he had carried his dream before magistrates and into the new world, defending it charismatically before all comers, writing a defense that attracted strong minded intelligent men whose families grew large and prosperous in America, Kuhlwein, Joder, DeTurk, Schenkel, Yoder, Reiff, LeDee and others who acted in a public manner.

The Newborn habits of American revivalism inculcated liberty by their theatrics. Religious primitivism and charismatic behavior mark all frontiers, and the newborn were at the forefront of mystical nihilism, radical pietism and religious primitivism. So strongly individualistic in the overthrow of formula the peace loving spirit of all the groups of Philadelphia that made liberty possibleThat said, it was the deep abiding and the Newborn the best occasion of their testing.

The later freedoms of the Declaration and Constitution were nurtured most among the most outrageous sects and religions of early Philadelphia.

This article was written at the request of an editor, but not published, but it seems from the evidence that the Newborn Baumannites might be credited for contributing to American thought much outside their usual due.

Freedom of conscience went unnoticed in Pennsylvania except among the participants. Early Pennsylvania was a lawless place, but whether as a haven of extreme liberty or religious plurality in a golden age the victor gets to declare.

Any window on 1720-1730 pre-revolutionary Philadelphia is worth seeing through. It cannot help but focus what became significant later. Issues of religion were a whole lot more than religion, encompassed politics, science, art. There are not that many of these windows. The longer you look through them the more you see, not that a list is forthcoming, but the themes are undeniable, liberty being foremost. So something that first appears small can enlarge our understanding. (from Jacob Reiff)

2. The Rights of Women

not so unlike that manuscript included at the end of he Music of the Ephrata Cloister where the writer takes up the first tract in support of animal rights attributed to Ludwig Hocker Brother Obed of the Ephrata Cloister, 95f. He does so also for the rights of women, but this had been a cause of Cornelius Agrippa in Nobilitate & Præœcellentia Fœminei of 1529, The Nobility of Woman.

In addition to provoking liberty from their scurrilous speech, Baumann’s idea of the sinless body implicitly supported the rights of women against the unworldly pietistic sects. Baumann incensed his opponents with the statement that “with the body one cannot sin before God.” The pietists’ fear of the body had extended to women in a kind of Gnostic transference which symbolized a fear of the flesh. Women were blamed for male sexuality. Such prejudice extended to marriage, which Conrad Beissel of Ephrata called a refuge of the carnal minded. Baumann’s vindication of woman must be seen against the idea of woman symbolizing the unfaithful in the Gnostic world, a temptation to man to sin in the flesh. Baumann turns this view on its head when he says the body is not capable of sin.

The body enabled sin for Beissel who believed every aspect of existence tainted with the flesh, so that the "good [that] sought to possess them" (Chronicon Ephratense 129) must be protected from "too much of the good [falling] into their natural life." He urged spiritual and physical virginity upon his followers. This natural life Beissel called "man-power" (Chronicon 130) or the "selfish possession" of the good. Such medievalism overhung his core belief that marriage was "a house of correction for carnal minded persons" (Chronicon 147). The eminent editor of Chronicon, Peter Miller, expanded this notion to the effect that "who does not know that carnal intercourse stains not only the soul, but also weakens the body, and renders the voice coarse and rough; so that the senses of him must be very blunt who cannot distinguish a virgin from a married woman by her voice. Much concerning the fall of man can be explained from the voice" (161). Baumann’s notion of no longer sinning with the body struck at the heart of those theologies that posited sin as a cause for instruction and strong leadership. If sinless there was little reason for such outer rituals toward redemption. A person could just live as they saw fit, which they did anyway, but with guilt.

Pennsylvania pietists believed the new birth was a regeneration leading to changed life, unworldly. Baumann however said that “Christ’s congregation is invisible” (138) and “everything is of the spirit” (138). The Newborn hijacked the new birth and made it antagonistic to those beliefs. Baumann's "perfection" of sinlessness constituted a massive internal revelation from which the "babe" could not fall. But when Baumann disputed with Quakers and all comers on the courthouse steps of Philadelphia, he did it with humor, promising he would walk on the Delaware river. He did not say if this would be in winter, on ice. When Baumann visited Beissel’s “solitary residence” at Conestoga (c. 1721) that most famous comeuppance given him was as much a revelation of Beissel as it was correction of Baumann. Beissel said of Baumann's idea of freedom from sin, that “Adam did not do evil with his body” (Chronicon 137), was contradicted by his own stink (literally) and repudiated Baumann's sinlessness. Beissel’s demons would later allow him to seduce other men's wives with promises of spiritual intercourse, so physical sinlessness would of course much offend him (Chronicon 17).

3. Perfectionism and Humanitarianism

The cults of Perfectionism begat John Rogers in Newport about 1674. The Rogerenes were "the last of the English revolutionary sects and the first of the indigenous American perfectionist sects" (John L. Brooke. The Refiner's Fire: The Making of Mormon Cosmology, 1644-1844, 48)
Nature is freedom and law restriction, but liberty tries to reconcile nature and law, the personal with the social. Or put another way law is a form of enforced Perfectionism which opposes humanitarianism, which allows for imperfection. Philadelphia Quakers sought purity (law) in their shunning of the world (nature), which compromised the Quakers’ humanity, says Daniel Joseph Boorstin, “To avoid taking oaths, Quakers sacrificed the humanity of criminal laws.”(Daniel Boorstin 11).

But many Pennsylvania groups shared Quaker and Gnostic suspicions on the body and were willing to sacrifice humanity for the perfect pursuit of purity. Count Zinzendorf (1799-1760) was both an autocrat and a sensualist. John Phillip Boehm (1683-1749) was a fanatic in all his personal polemics. He terrorized every reformed pastor, from Weiss and Peter Miller, who was pastor of a Reformed church in 1730, to pastors Rieger, Lispsky and Goetschy. Printer Christopher Sauer (1695-1758) was wildly partisan, blaming Beissel for heresy and overturning the English language movement. It is no surprise Baumann’s followers were fanatics who carried their own hypocrisies to an extreme. Sinlessly they met in taverns on Sunday and mocked the believers in their churches. Sinlessly they made creeds and beliefs a bedrock of their anti-hypocrisy, and instituted their own anti-Calvinisms as abominable, as though they were latter day prophets: “filthy!” they proclaimed like Isaiah, “they are all gone out the way!”

On any occasion of assembly, outside churches, during sermons and at funerals, the newborn in their cups mocked and satirized the public beliefs of every fellow cultist, sectarian and religious. There is no record of newborn piety anywhere else but in this public mockery or in taverns taking beer as communion. Separated from all semblance of tolerance it was a lifestyle that grew thin quick. In New England they’d have been stoned. If the Newborn were tolerated in this barbarism anyone could be, but the long lasting social effects of the Newborn in the birth of liberty also influenced later American religion: “Matthias Baumann’s hallucinatory perfectionism had important consequences: it helped inspire the many ‘holiness revivals’ of the nineteenth century in both Europe and America and left traces in modern American evangelicalism” (Bernard Bailyn 157).

As a result of their extreme beliefs the Newborn also dramatically confronted the overt occultism of the sects who yoked primitive biblical devotional language with an allegorical remake of the nature of man. The Newborn put to flight those renaissance pictographs of the spiritual bride. There is no new moon braying among them or disciple anointing talk, just rancor and parody, satire and rigor. These were applied across the board against all religiousity, including the Rosicrucianism of the mystic Jacob Boehme (1575-1624) and the mystics of the Wissahickon. The Newborn rejected outright every form of sectarian and denominational worship. So when those “extraordinary physical manifestations occurred—some quacked like ducks, some brayed like jackasses,” (Sunbonnets, 51), and descriptions of the Fall occurred in mysterious quaternaries, they heaped them with scorn.

The denominations were as much offended with Baumann’s sinlessness as the sects. The spiritual stink for them of such talk was Baumann’s arrogating spirituality to himself, but it is pointless to debate the Newborn theology of lawlessness in Oley.

4. --Acceptance of the body, liberty of speech, perfectionism were all wrapped up together in Newborn life.

Die Neu-geboren was an anti church. They “boasted they had only been sent by God to confound men” (Chronicon Ephratense 17). Matthias Baumann’s call to examine the spirit as the cause of sin instead of the flesh confronts the first Gnostic delusion that fell into the material realm, and confirms Dante climbing out, entering Paradise, in “this glorious and holy flesh (Paradiso, XIV, 45). The spirit made the choice, said Baumann. The body is incapable of sin without the spirit the way a car does not sin when the operator fails to brake. The Newborn took spiritual sin as the motive of their Call to confound and confront men even if St. Paul confronts both in his filthiness of the flesh and spirit (II Cor 7.1). What indeed is a doctrine of the flesh?

The Newborn held baptism in contempt with communion and church attendance because “Christ’s congregation is invisible” (Stoudt, Baumann 138). “Everything is of the spirit,” said Baumann (138), but when he said he could not sin in the body, his opponents said he claimed he could not sin at all. What he actually said was that sin was of the spirit. Of course his tract in its plain speaking has as many inconsistencies as those of other battling shepherds, John Philip Boehm, George Michael Weiss and Conrad Beissel. The light and shadow of Call are part of Baumann's confounding the world. In the light that emerges from his coruscations extremes define the question; if this then that! Newborn beliefs were so big they could not contain Newborn ideas and became disbeliefs.

Standing against visibility Baumann’s followers enacted shadow services outside conventional churches at worship, and in taverns, mocking and mimicking the evangelism of the time with scatological preaching that would not pass the censors of Saturday Night Live. The excesses reported by Mittelberger are parody (see Journey to Pennsylvania 45, 83-86). Henry Muhlenberg accounts the more sober side of facetious Newborn rhetoric (Journals, I, 138-139) with their evangelistic picketing (I, 146, 357) and mock services held in taverns on Sunday mornings (I, 352). The first licensed Reformed preacher in Philadelphia, Rev. George Michael Weiss, found farmers not pastors performing their doctrines in The Preacher traveling about in the American Wilderness (1729). Matthias Baumann, founder of the Newborns left one work, A Call to the Unregenerate (Berleberg, 1731). The marks of infamy were their fame.

The Newborn were champions at holding their neighbors in contempt. Believing they were free from sin they could hardly mistake, which is how they underwrote free thought, because they presented to society the dilemma to either forcibly suppress them or tolerate them. Liberty cannot exist without this tolerance, so it is also a mark of the generosity of Pennsylvania culture that they were tolerated. If the newborn could mock all sacred beliefs of their neighbors and be tolerated then their liberty was great indeed. To show how noxious this can be, compare the birthers of today who challenge the president’s nativity or the people who show up at funerals to protest government wars (Westboro Baptist Church, of Topeka, Kansas has picketed at the funerals of 500 soldiers nationwide since June 1991.). The newborn practiced even greater offenses, which freedom of speech was ultimately licensed into the constitution.

God Falls Into My Mind

All parties derided the Newborn, in part to evade their own malfeasance, but it is too easy to discredit Matthias Baumann as a bipolar menace in his so-called ravings. Called an hallucinatory perfectionism because of the way its founder came to his beliefs, he fell into a coma for some days, or weeks. His wife thought him dead and he had no memory of the event except to say that he had been transported to heaven, caught up like St. Paul, who also says little of the experience (II Corinthians 12. 1-4). He returned to earth changed. Whether this happened once or twice, in five or fourteen days, and whether he was arrested in 1702 and 1705 or 1706, in 1709, when a handful of Baumann relatives and friends emigrated to Pennsylvania and settled in Oley, Pennsylvania, Baumann followed in 1714.

He says himself “I entered the sickness an old man. I arose a new one.” (translated by John Joseph Stoudt in the Historical Review of Berks County, Fall, 1978). Baumann repeats that before this he could not concentrate on saying the Lord’s Prayer long enough to avoid being interrupted by errant thought four times over, but after God fell into his mind, as he puts it (Stoudt, 137) he could not be distracted. He would have been hospitalized, drugged and shocked in later times. There are plenty of analogues besides psychosis in the religious ecstasy of the saints, the visions of Blake and in the supernatural ramblings and astrologies of them all. But unlike Jacob Boehme the shoemaker, acclaimed for alchemy and psychology, translated not to heaven but to English (by William Law, 1764). Baumann put no structure on his visions. He lacked a system, merely conceptualized that the inner world trumps the outer, that sin is of the spirit not the flesh, that beliefs, realities are internal, that outer practices of devotion contravene the truth of the inner. How he knows this of course questions the sincerity of his own motive since he judges piety, but “Christianity is not something as you think which can be taught” (Stoudt, 142).

Christians Without Christ

A majority of Newborn practices after Bauman’s death in 1727 read right out of his plan of action for these “Christians without Christ,” Christians in quotes, or the unregenerate in A Call to the Unregenerate World (Ein Ruf an die Unwiedergebohrene Welt, written 1723). The faux evangelist in the back of a manure wagon mocking Oley farmers (Mittelberger 45) is following Baumann’s seven points, holding that “all denominations are sinful’ (Stoudt 138), and “all that Christ and his Apostles commanded has become vast idolatry” (Stoudt 144). Baumann ridiculed the hypocrisy of outer worship held sacred by churches and sects. His Call reads like an invective against the Pharisees who think that “if you only live devoutly you will go to heaven” (Stoudt 144). He calls this “self-centered piety” with the paradox that “God dwells in a Christian, therefore he can sin no more.” And “he who is born of God cannot sin” (Stoudt 137), which seems to say that because he cannot sin that being devout is a sign that he is sinning.

So all signs of devotion to him were sin. He numbers seven axioms of these disbeliefs and says that “is the doctrine that Christ brought into the world.” Self centered piety is a proof of sin because “when God comes into a person…he does nothing but praise and honor God. Rather, he does not do it but God’s Spirit does it in him.” (Stoudt 137) If this equivocates the doer from the deed that is the paradox, to call it so, because all that is seen is the deed, the motive of the doer is unknown, whether acting out of God or selfishness. Thus with baptism, communion, church attendance, prayer, devout living, alms giving and fasting, the doing of the deed, he said, betrayed the outer act against the inner. Hence “all that Christ and His Apostles commanded has become vast idolatry…the best has become the vilest” (Stoudt 144). The societal malignancies of these people, who seem so out of sorts, were easy targets for their antagonists to discredit.

Muhlenberg, the most balanced voice of the time, gave a contemporary explanation of Newborn theology: "this sect claims the new birth which they receive suddenly through immediate inspiration and heavenly visions through dreams and the like. When they receive the new birth in this way, then they are God and Christ Himself, can no longer sin, and are infallible. They therefore use nothing from God's Word except those passages, which taken out of context, appear to favor their false tenets. The holy sacraments are to them ridiculous and their expressions concerning them are extremely offensive" (Journals I, 149, June 10, 1747).

Heavenly visions and inner light preoccupy what Muhlenberg learns of the old man who disturbed Philip Bayer's funeral: "this was the basis of his authority: one night, many years ago, he saw a light in his room. He claimed that this light revealed to him that he was a child of God, that the magistracy, the ministry, the Bible, sacraments, churches, schools, etc. are of the devil, that all men must be like him, etc" (Journals, I, 357-358). This smacks as much of ergot poisoning as illumination. The conflict of the inner and outer raised deep psychological issues for a Pietism that rejected formalism on one hand for a reviving of the spirit on the other. This pendulum came full swing in Baumann’s seven laws rejecting outer form, but he opposed all the theology of the time in saying the body was not the cause of sin,

5. Dada

Resisted in the new world as he had been in the old, Baumann provoked the second extant printed book in Pennsylvania, The Preacher, / traveling about in the American Wilderness/ by George Michael Weiss (1729) [Der IN DER AMERICAN SCHEN WILDNUSZ]. As is often the case the back story of these affairs rivals the main tale, for Weiss not only wrote this title, but also the first book about the Indians in the wilderness (1741). Weiss was not alone in resisting the Neu-geboren since nearly every other religious figure of the time did so, from Beissel and Boehme of the 1720’s to Muhlenberg and Zinzendorf in the 1740’s. The Newborn, never more than a few hundred, overtook more powerful groups in influence out of all proportion to membership. Reformed apostle Boehm compares it with much larger groups, “all sorts of errorists, as Independents, Puritans, Anabaptists, Newborn, Saturday-folks, yea even the most horrible heretics, Socinians, Pietists, etc. (Letter of 1728, Life and Letters 161). Mittelberger does the same in 1756, “Lutherans, Reformed, Catholics, Quakers…Dunkers, Presbyterians, Newborn…” (Journey 54).

It is hard to judge them fairly from the words of their enemies, almost the only other source being a letter of May 14, 1718 written by his follower Maria De Turk where she says, “I cannot sin any more.” This is the crux of the affair, the cause of newborn mockery of other beliefs and the revulsion against them in turn. Sure, Baumann was no longer a force after his death, as his critics say in every breath, along with mentioning that he was a day laborer, or that maybe if there had just been a good asylum none of this would have happened, but it needs to be said that Baumann’s visitation at the birth of Liberty in America prefigured the whole Dada movement of the 1920’s in Paris, to hold up to scorn the everyday affairs of men thus to provoke them into consciousness, which became by the 21 century public philsophy in the dissolution of all boundries whether religous, social, geographical. All values dissolved into a melting pot merged identities, the opposite of Dada intent. So it goes.

Notes:

Bernard Bailyn. British Academy, 2007. The Search for Perfection: Atlantic Dimensions. http://www.proc.britac.ac.uk/tfiles//151p135.pdf

Daniel Joseph Boorstin. The Americans, the colonial experience. New York: Random House, 1958. “To avoid taking oaths, Quakers sacrificed the humanity of criminal laws.”(Daniel Boorstin, 11).

Chronicon Ephratense. Ephrata, 1786. Translated by J. Max Hark, Lancaster, 1889.

Mittelberger, Gottlieb. Journey To Pennsylvania. Edited and Translated by Oscar Handlin and John Clive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960.

Journals of Henry Melchior Muhlenberg. Translated by Theodore G. Tappert and John W. Doberstein. Fortress, 1958. Reprinted by Picton Press, Camden, ME.

The Life and Letters of the Rev. John Philip Boehm. Edited by the Rev. William J. Hinke. Philadelphia: Sunday School Board of the Reformed Church in the United States, 1916.

Motherwell, Robert. tr. The Dada Manifesto, in Dada Painters and Poets, NY: 1951.

Gary B. Nash http://philadelphiaencyclopedia.org/essays/cradle-of-liberty/

Pendleton, Philip E. Oley Valley Heritage, The Colonial Years: 1700-1775. Birdsboro, PA: The Pennsylvania German Society, 1994. [The general details of the Newborn are well stated here. Pendleton also gives Maria DeTurk’s letter of 1718 in full]

John Joseph Stoudt. “Matthias Baumann.” Historical Review of Berks County. Fall, 1978. [a translation of Baumann’s Call to the Unregenerate]

John Joseph Stoudt. Sunbonnets and Shoofly Pies. New York: A. S. Barnes & Co., 1973

Conclusion
To conclude this affair reveals something of the preparation for this writing in the exchange of letters with Harry E. Reiff, historian of the Wentz Church, successor more or less of the Reiff Church so long ago, these letters are offered.

Harry E. Reiff (1924–2014) was a notable genealogist and organic chemist from Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Born in 1924, he earned a Ph.D. in organic chemistry from the University of Minnesota in 1955 and applied his meticulous, scientific approach to both his professional career and his passion for genealogy. He is best known for his extensive work on family history, particularly his book The Reiffs in America, published in 1986, which documents the descendants of Jacob Reiff (1698–1782), a son of Swiss immigrant Hans George Reiff, who arrived in America before 1720. This work is considered a significant contribution to genealogical research, reflecting his dedication to empirical accuracy and detail. Reiff’s genealogical efforts extended beyond his book. He compiled a vast collection of research materials, including correspondence, family data sheets, and notes, now housed in the Historical Society of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, where he served as a Trustee Emeriti. His work influenced other genealogists, with his findings cited in publications like Reiff to Riffe by Fred J. Riffe and Emigrants, Refugees and Prisoners by Richard Warren Davis. His letters and insights, such as those clarifying distinctions between different Reiff families in Pennsylvania, demonstrate his commitment to precision and his role as a mentor in the field.

Sunday, January 4, 2015

The Letters of Genealogist Harry E. Reiff

Attic, Douglass Mansion

Harry Reiff brought meticulous, objective, fair minded efforts to his work, just the qualities that make a good Ph.D. chemist, which he was. The thought of assembling all the genealogical detail in his Reiff Families, over so many years and without error, proves the point. He says in these letters that it has been 25 years since he has been down to the Philadelphia archives, the tombs, which indicates the amount of time and depth of inquiry he undertook. The value of his thought grounded in an empirical reality is that it is not gossip, but he will speculate. It was ever of value to provoke these moments, but he didn't jump to conclusions; one doesn't necessarily agree with one's own speculations. For a reader new or learned in these matters such exchanges can aid understanding of issues we may never resolve.

As early as 1974, in passing through Pennsylvania on the way to London and Wales, I had a whimsy to drive through Skippack and not only found in a thrift there The Goshenhoppen Region mag of May 1974 with the article on the Jacob Reiff Homestead, but I contacted Arthur J. Lawton the editor and went to a dig he was conducting with his class at the Farm. My aunt and father were contributing background to Harry's work that appeared in 1986. For the non scientific writer the personal among all the facts and details is of paramount importance, and even also is the personal of the researchers themselves, especially when they become friends. In the end Harry was convinced I was well meaning, not an easy thing to show a Dutchman through mere correspondence, after which he made personal references to his military service in Germany in '44, when he began this work in 1960, and especially, how he came to be interested in genealogy in the first place (8 June 2003). His good judgment and taste are realized in his wit, his comments for instance on Fred Riffe's photo of the Confederate soldier. He maintains to the last that his background in science doesn't fit him to understand The Flowering Heart, but as he says, he was historian of the Boehm church and actually grew up and lived in that ethos, which of course, I did not.

What thrills me most to walk alongside such men as Harry E. Reiff and Issac Horst, et. al., whether for a long or short a time in amity and fellowship and contribute mutually to their efforts, is the inkling of insight, the suggestion of a whole world beyond the sole fact, such as the bare mention that Harry spent 1944 in Germany, for it was not evident at first in his obituary or the almost accidental manner in which he reveals how he got started along the genealogical path.This is entirely a cooperative venture over many generations that is one of the exquisite pleasures of it, to join in a common venture. We all walk beside one another even if we don't know it. Along with crediting Andy Berky with first stirring his interest in these matters, Harry notes in Reiff Families that Berky "found a record of a purchase of a silver watch in 1717 in Philadelphia by Hans George" (1). A thrilling observation.

This acknowledgment appears at the end of Perkiomen Autographs:

Modern works on the names here stem from the genealogy, Reiff Families in America (1986) by Harry Reiff (HER), a Ph.D. organic chemist (Minnesota, 1955) who long contributed to genealogy forums and corresponded at length with interested parties about Jacob Reiff's descendants. Reiff to Riffe (1995) by Fred J. Riffe pays tribute to him as does Emigrants, Refugees and Prisoners, Vol II (1997) by Richard Warren Davis. HER is the source for the first modern printed reference by Davis that Hans George Reiff “was in Pennsylvania by 14 Feb 1718 as he owned land next to Michael Ziegler at Bebber Twp. (later Salford twp.) according to the deed bearing that date.” Davis acknowledges this information in a footnote as a “letter from Harry E. Reiff of Ambler, Pennsylvania, September 1994."

Harry's influence extends beyond his printed work. He contributed much in the background and foreground of this effort. For example, in a letter about the Ziegler deed, he says "there is often confusion in the literature involving Mennonite Hans Reiff and German Reformed Church Hans George Reiff. Mennonite Hans Reiff's farm was about a mile or so from that of Hans George's home and even closer to Jacob Reiff's presumed home, now called the Jacob Reiff Home/Park." He has seen much of the writing here in manuscript, and though none of the errors likely to be found are his, he has saved the narrative a number of times with his meticulous attention to detail and reasoned judgment. HER says his book is "not a family history, but just a genealogical record of Jacob's descendants."

Obituary of Harry E. Reiff

Errors occur with the slip of a pen, a finger and the assumption of mind, fatigue of work, embarrassment of one's beliefs, so let's admit it up front, take the good and leave the rest.

One gets much help from the like minded. Glenn Landis is one still alive, and Joel Alderfer, and Michelle Napoletano Lynch. But many have gone on, Isaac Horst who translated the Andrew Mack letters, Elizabeth Reiff Young translated the whole milieu, and Dr. Harry Reiff, whose letters recounted here answer many questions. If I include mine to him it is just to encourage anybody walking to continue.

Valuable sources include the two volumes of Fred J. Riffe, Reiff to Rife Family in America. So much chronology would be vague without his inclusion of wills, narrative chronologies, clerical documents, grave sites consulted at every turn for these. Any writer knows how easily errors occur, that's why I like the blog form because corrections can always be made. A book however takes its stand and without the utmost editorial help fails perfection. Add the encyclopedic Strassburger Family and Allied Families of Pennsylvania, which is where Harry found the 1717 deed of Hans George Reiff.

Jacob Reiff was both German Reformed and Mennonite

For a long time I puzzled over the lack of church trail for Jacob Reiff after his upset with the German Reformed Church. At one time (c. 1724 f) this church met in his house. In 1727 however the Sunday school teacher Boehm, who the Reiff church had made its pastor, was dispatched by the arriving immigrant party including the ordained Weiss, with the Hillegasses. Within a year Jacob Reiff was commissioned to go back to Holland with Weiss to raise funds, but this effort was a failure in many ways, especially since Weiss did not know whether he would return. In any case, that story remains to be properly told, but there is as yet no specific record of Jacob Reiff's practice afterward, leaving inference to believe he became a Mennonite. These two faiths are not particularly close, but the Mennonites seemed to surround Jacob Reiff.

Research is all about asking the right question. It is also somehow about luck. On a recent visit to Harleysville, September 2012, I saw the Skippack Alms Book on display in a glass case, so I asked if there was a photographic replica of it, thinking to photograph some of the signatures with my (now old) 15 megapix camera. The librarian, Joel Alderfer, brought out a translation with also the German text. I always start at the back and work front. But when I got to the first page I saw that Anna Reiff(in) had given ten shillings to the Mennonite Meetinghouse in 1738. The first page! With all the other incidentals it begins to seem as if, even if German Reformed, the first Reiffs were Mennonite also, pretty much like my Aunt Elizabeth who was a Presbyterian elder but, as she said, always a Mennonite. I found this detail really by accident so I am saying that merely to be interested in the subject can work wonders.

This has happened before, but who can predict it? In 1975, on the way to London, I took a stay in Philadelphia, declaring to my aunt, father and mother that I was going to drive to Skippack to find it out. They had a complete ancestry chart with dates from Hans George on, so they said not to bother, there was nothing more to find. Take this seriously, never, never listen to anyone but yourself. You can also get in trouble this way. So I drove the next day to Skippack, stopping here and there. At the first such stop I came upon that issue of The Goschenhoppen Region of May 1974 with the article on the Jacob Reiff Homestead. My son is scandalized at how I will just call or knock on the door of people when I have an interest. He is so glad when they are not home. So I called the editor, Arthur J. Lawton out of the blue, and managed to get three earlier issues from him, but in so doing we met, and, as he was conducting a high school class in archaeology at the Jacob Reiff farm, invited me to join with them the next day. The site was all properly strung in squares and the students were brushing and sifting the dirt when he announced that a descendent of Jacob Reiff himself would join them that day. I think he enjoyed that. So that marked one of the beginnings to all these matters.

Harry did not want letters in email, he wanted the real thing, so consequently I have a whole folder of them.

[From Perkiomen Autographs, here]

Please see also the photo memoir executed by Aeyrie Reiff: Time Travel in Eighteenth Century Pennsylvania, 1712-2012.

14 Nov 2001

Dear Harry Reiff,

I have collected and meditated on the material included here for some time, but that is not to say I'm satisfied with its present form. However I feel the urge to give it form, hence this letter to you. I think perhaps that after Part 3 I should go right into Skippack and its concerns, so I just added Part 4 to print the material.

I imagine my audience to be my many nieces and nephews and their families and to them much of what I say here will be a revelation. Certainly you're more interested in what follows, which is the history of the four Reiff brothers, George, Peter, Conrad and Jacob, about whom quite a lot of information exists, although much of it is polemical. Oh why can't we all be loved?

I've started with Conrad because he raises in miniature many of the issues that seem to occur with Jacob, but presently, that would be in Ch. 2, Conrad is asking to be expanded into also an examination of lawlessness in religion and/or anti-churches in colonial Pennsylvania. This will require a wider reading than I've yet done. After Conrad I go right into Jacob, much of which I already have in draft, about three of four chapters. So that's about where I am at present. You can asume I am desperate to talk with somebody who cares about this material. I'm also sending of copy of this to my Aunt Elizabeth.

Your truly,

Andy Reiff

21 November 2001. Harry E. Reiff

Dear Andy,

The chapter “On Peace and War” is a rather startling exposition on the appearance of the word ‘rife’ in ancient times, notably England, Scandinavia, Germany, etc. This certainly interesting-I never realized the word was used so often in so many ways/meanings. However, as a patrilineal surname, I’ve never seen its use before the 18^th century anywhere but German, Swiss and Austrian (Tyrol) records.

Perhaps you’ll let me add a few more variations from the book “Reif, Reiff, Reifer Familienchronik” prepared and published in 1976 by Werner Hug, and based on data from the Carl Ringer-Reif Familienorganization. The book was microfilmed in 1985 by an LDS team. Additional spellings are numerous.

The books lists the descendants of Hans Reiffer, a miller who took control in 1481 of a mill in Russikon (near Zurich). Descendants are listed up to 1925 if they remained in Switzerland but lines are not followed for those who emigrated to Germany or other countries.

Rather than make the laborious effort to translate the German initial pages, I enclose photocopies of them. You’ll note that the earliest date mentioned is 1375.

You’re quite correct-I’ll be much interested in the work you’ve done on the four brothers. If you’d like me to send additional data (or suggested corrections), I’d be glad to do so. Incidentally, do you have a copy of Henry Dotterer’s statement that he found evidence pointing to the possibility that Hans George married Anna Maria, the daughter of a minister of the Dutch Reformed Church? I’ve been unable to find my notes pertaining to this tidbit.

Regards,

Harry Reiff

5 Dec 2001

Dear Harry,

If Hans George married the daughter of a minister of the Dutch Reformed Church this must have been either in the old country or New York.Were it true it would not contradict the Reiff reformed ardor, but increase it. While I know of Henry Dotterer's fascination with Peter's girls, Anna and Catharine, as his possible forebearers, and of his other Reiff enthusiasms, I've not see any of the manuscript materials.

I haven't stopped thinking about the George Hendricks Reiff Mennonite connection you suggested.

If I backtrack then I know that my grandmother Anna Mack Reiff and her husband Howard were, with their respective parents, Jacob Landis Reiff and Henry Mack, members of the same Mennonite Church in Philadelphia and that Jacob L.'s father, Abraham Schwenk Reiff (1817-1879) was a deacon of the Worcester Mennonite Church. Jacob L. bought his son Howard a car about 1910 so that on Sundays they could all drive to Uncle George's farm to visit.

How we got to be Mennonite might be on the other side of Abraham S. unless Mennonites just spring full blown from the soil.

If we were to go down to the Tombs, the records would all be in German, yes? I'd be willing to try sometime. Are you game? I would bring my son, Aeyrie, the best tempered person that I know. He would be a big help.

We would be looking for evidence that George Hendricks's wife Elizabeth was a Mennonite and that through her he and his children became such?

Against this theory must be the fact that George Clemens Reiff, Abraham's father, apparently served in the War of 1812, also apparently some of his brothers and sisters were Reformed.

I feel like the trail has evaporated again. I'd love to hear your thoughts upon these ramblings.

Conrad and I have reconciled him with the differing accounts of his life in Mittelberger, Muhlenberg (implicit) and his will. Happily the news is good. After an apparent middle age of worldliness and very ill chosen associates, Conrad, "the richest man in Oley" renders the most devout will possible, suggesting not only that Mittelberger's charges were essentially true, but also that they were not, since he lived to repudiate them. I am glad most of all for his ancestors!

Yours truly,

Andy

11 December 2001

Harry Reiff

Andy;

Elizabeth Hendricks who married George Reiff III was a daughter of Leonard Hendricks, who in turn was a son of the immigrant Lawrence Hendricks. The Hendricks were part of the so-called Krefeld group who settled/established German town in 1683 and later. These people were called Dutch Quakers - induced by William Penn to come to Penn's colony in America. Apparently there was a strong Mennonite population in the Krefeld/Munchen-Gladbach area, and Quaker-Mennonite-Reformed families at times were mixed. At any rate, Leonard Hendricks owned land in the Towamencin area of present Montgomery Co., and was considered a Quaker.

Lawrence [Laurentz] Hendricks; father William was a Holland Dutch Mennonite. He came with Pastorious in 1682 and brought is sons Lawrence and Henry with him. I never tried to sort out the Quaker/Mennonite relationships in this country. However I doubt that George Reiff III became a Mennonite because of his Dutch Quaker wife Elizabeth.

The archives in Philadelphia City Hall are not at all always in German - far from it. I haven't been there for 25 years and have no desire to go back. I'm not even sure you can go down there since Sept. 11. Perhaps some library research would be better. As I recall, the book "William Penn and the Dutch Quakers" will be as good a source to start looking for Hendricks.

As for George Clemens Reiff, his mother Elizabeth Clemens descended from the Mennonite immigrant Gerhard Clemens whose prolific descendants were mostly Mennonites. There are several books on the Clemens family.

The Mennonite lines seem to me to be quite clear from George III down to my grandfather Abraham W. Reiff, a nephew of your Abraham Schwenk Reiff.

I've made a copy of a letter sent to me by Glenn Landes, the chap who found the estate settlement document bearing Annna Landes Reiff's signature. Perhaps that will be of use to you.

Regards,

Harry

3 February 2002

Dear Harry,

Thanks for the copy of that Anna Landes Reifff letter and for your thoughts on the Hendricks Mennonite connections. I take it that you subscribe to these facts.

It sounds like Glenn Landis might wonder whether Jacob the Elder went over to the Mennonites himself. Jacob doesn't seem to turn up on any of the other various church rolls, so, assuming he continued with the "Reiff Church' and its succession of pastors following Weiss: Miller, Rieger, Goetchy and Straub, after 1743, what?

I have finally obtained a copy of Emigrants, Refugees and Prisoners that you recommended. Other than proximity and similarity of name, is there reason to believe that Hans George Reiff "was probably related in some way" (347) to his neighbor, the Mennonite Hans Reiff? Speaking of Jacob the Elder, Davis says that "many of his grandchildren married Mennonites" (348). I guess this implicates besides the Hendricks, the Landis and the Clemens families.

The humor of your statement that "I doubt that George Reiff III became a Mennonite because of his Dutch Quaker wife Elizabeth," makes me want to ask, why did he become a Mennonite? Just to avoid all the fuss?

I enclose the following precis of what I had written regarding Conrad Reiff up until last month.

There is a kind of spiritual odyssey in Conrad's beliefs. At the outset he is Reformed, lives in Skippack,signs the petition of 1728 (and 1731?) and is probably included in Boehm's general indictment that "Jacob Reiff and his brothers contend that the land belongs to them" (Letters, 1730, 217). Around this time he marries Anna Margaretha Kuhlwein and moves to Oley (c. 1733), site of the Newborn colony in which his father-in-law, Philip Kuhlwein was a leader. He inherited Kuhlwein's estate after his death in 1736 (Pendleton, Oley Valley Heritage, 108) and apparently was still one of the Newborn, although after Matthias Baumann's death in 1727 others of that cult (the Yoders, John Lesher, Casper Griesemer, Gabriel Boyer) "founded the Oley Reformed Church" (c. 1734-36, see Don Yoder, Yoder Newsleter Online, #5, April, 1985), but Conrad may have continued (out of loyalty?) with that unfriendly view of clergy, rituals and sacraments which the Newborn concocted. Many years later Mittelberger (1753) indicts Conrad Reiff and Arnold Hufnagel (who witnessed Kuhlwein's will, April 7, 1737) as "archenemies of the clergy, scoffing at them and at the Divine word...laughing at and denying Heaven and future bliss as well as damnation in Hell" (Journey to Pennsylvania, 84). This is thought to be a last gasp of the Newborn philosophy. In any case, the specifics of the charges against these "planters" stem from their religion not irreligion. The year 1753 is a busy one for such reports. Muhlenberg's funeral for the Lutheran Philip Beyer is disrupted by another Newborn. In ruminating about Reiffs on the occasion of Anna Maria's funeral, likewise in 1753, Muhlenberg states that "she had several married sons who are well thought of, and some of these profess the Reformed religion while others believe in nothing." Conrad and Peter, often identified together, are the likeliest candidates for those who "sought only transitory things of this world." Whether it was Mittelberger's (apocryyphal?) attack by a flight of golden eagles or simple maturity, a change of heart occurs at some point with Conrad, although the case is complicated by red herrings.

In 1763 Muhlenberg reports visiting with one Anna Margretha Reiss, Reiss being the way Muhlenberg spelled the name of Anna Maria Reiff, Jacob Reiff's mother. Anna Margretha is of course the name of Conrad's wife. Muhlenberg says that "she and her husband are Reformed and live in Kensington" (I, 606), but Kensington is not Oley. Another false lead occurs with the statement that Conrad was a "Mennonite preachr" (Sunday Eagle Magazine, January 12, 1969, Reading, PA). More striking however than this unsupported but potential renewed cordiality to clergy is the statement of faith in Conrad's will (1777) of his "certain hopes of a joyful resurrection through the merits of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." This is just opposite the Newborn view reported by Boehm that "they claim that they have essential divinity in themselves" (Letters, 1728, 161). Thus he seems to have come full circle as many of these people did; Kuhlwein had once been Reformed himself. The phrase "through the merits of my Lord" echoes especially with arguments Whitfield reports in his Journals (November 25, 1740) about how "the Lord Jesus was to me our whole righteousness." This had been a point of contention in the revivals of the 1740s. Neither Hans George nor George Reiff made any such testament of faith in their wills, which is not to say they were not spiritually so inclined, to the contrary, but to show that Conrad may have wanted to settle any doubts he himself may have created.

Considering that so many of the Reiff family went there in later life we might say that Oley is like the afterlife, but it remains to be said whether the good or the bad. Whether it is the place or the people so constituted is a nice question, but how can we blame the geography? Yet we do. Blessed or damned. By most accounts the valley of Oley was prosperous; because it was available it attracted most of the many brotherhoods seeking a home at that time. But outsiders thought it ill. Muhlenberg, 1747, "a place were practically all the inhabitants are scoffers and blasphemers.' Rieger, 1755, "the haunt of the wildest and most unruly people and sects." Sects or insects? Shall we say, as Pendleton does, that that was just an extreme example of the many visionary German religious radicals "swarming" throughout the region (105)? Pietism a license to swarm?

The Newborn contentions are important for the Reiffs on several accounts.

Weiss, while pastoring the Reiff Church, published that early pamphlet, Der In Der Americani Schen Wildnusz (1729), against them. Sachse remarks that it it "a strange coincidence that both Boehm and Baumann came to Pennsylvania about the same time from Lambsheim, in the Palatinate (The German Sectarians, I, 157)." So here is Conrad Reiff about to marry into a sect against which both his pastors made significant railings. Boehm revisits their errors in his letters of 1728, 1730, and 1740, as does Muhlenberg. The issue affects Conrad, his sister (Anna Maria), their mother (who lived with her daughter), the daughter's husband, Conrad Gehr (in the Muhlenberg obsequies) and perhaps as well their son, Balthaser Gehr (cf. Pendleton, 137, 147) who was involved in Oley, not necessarily in a culpable sense, but was tried for assault and battery in 1767, and exercised a power of attorney for his infirm cousin Philip Reiff, second son of Conrad, in 1786. Also, it is important to remember that Peter Reiff moved to Oley (c. 1745) and lived near Conrad, as did George, their other brother, around 1757, and, according to Harry Reiff, Catharine, Jacob's daughter, was "a widow living in Oley at the time of her father's death," viz. 1782 (9). Holy Oley!

Yours truly,

Andy

13 /February 2002

Harry Reiff

Dear Andy;

Your precis on Conrad is well done. I'm impressed by the depth of your research, oftenin material not readily available to me.

Enclosed is a poor copy of the first page of the document Glenn Landis found. You'll notice the names on the lower left portion- Anna Reiff and Margreth Smith. The date of the document is Oct. 10, 1749. The second page you already have states that the estate of 366.10 (pounds) is to be divided between the widow and three children. One child is the oldest son, and then each of two daughters, apparently Anna and Margrath/Margaret, who signed/marked the first page. Note that some researchers have assigned Peter Reiff's wife to be Margaret Smith. If so she apparently was a widow when she married Peter.

Getting back to Jacob, he returned in 1729 from a trip to Europe to "fetch his relations," on the ship Mortonhouse with 'Jonathan' and 'Veronica'. I know nothing provable of these two, but it's easy to speculate that Veronica was Jacob's first wife (others have) who died shortly after the birth of Jacob's first son Jacob (Jr.), b. 1734. Jacob Jr. remained in the German Reformed Church and was one of the founders in 1760 of the Wentz's Reformed Church (now UCC) still an active church to this day. The church is often considered a successor to the 1725 Reiff German Reformed Church in nearby Lower Salford Twp., built on Jacob Reiff Sr's land and torn down by him around 1740, presumably because of a conflict with the first Reiff church parishioners and others. That's another long story about which you've heard, I'm sure.

As for the Dutch Quakers, apparently that term was used in the late 1600's / early 1700's in northern Germany/Holland to include Mennonites and Quakers. Anyhow, George III b. 1740 (6 years after brother Jacob) probably became a Mennonite when he was born. Actually I've wondered how strongly father Jacob followed Mennonite tenets. Nor firmly, I suspect, since he acted as a governmental representative, justice of the peace, etc. for some years.

One person I've not learned much about is Jacob and Anna's daughter Catharine. I don't know when she was born-perhaps between Jacob Jr. and George-but she was a widow when father Jacob's estate was settled (he died in 1782). I've often wondered if she married her first cousin Daniel, Conrad's son. Daniel also died in 1782, and the legal settlement of Jacob's estae a few years after his death notes that Catharine Reiff was a widow. Some researchers in Berks Co. say she married a man named Diese, but the estate settlement calls her Catharine Reiff, not Catharine Diese. Also, I've not seen proof of the Diese marriage.

Anyhow, getting back to your Conrad precis, I know next to nothing of the Newborn colony. Jacob buried his mother in the Lower Skippack Mennonite cemetery, and he asked the Lutheran Muhlenberg to preside at her funeral at the Lower Skippack Mennonite Meeting House. As for Muhlenberg's comments on Anna Maria's problems as she was living with her daughter and husband Conrad Gehr, the family knew about Conrad's peccadilloes, as indicated in the will of Hans George's son John George, who died leaving a legacy to nephew Balthazar with an admonition not to permit Conrad Gehr to have any of the legacy.

Further on the 'Newborn' problem and Boehm's concern (incidentally, my wife and I belong to Boehm's Reformed church now UCCC and I function desultorily as church historian) is that Boehm was having quite a problem/fight with Count Zinzendorf, a Moravian minister out of Bethlehem PA who was tryng to meld all Protestant sects into a single sect (of unknown beliefs, to me). Boehm was successful, of course, forcing Zinzendorf to go back to Bethlehem. I would be interested in hearing what connection Zinzendorf had with the 'Newborn' people.

Incidentally, son John George Reiff lived in Lower Salford Twp in the 1730s-1740s, during which period Conrad, Peter and of course Jacob also lived there. That was the area father Hans George had settled by 1717. Son John George moved into Germantown (had the Reiffs originally settled there? I don't know), where he died in 1759. I doubt he moved to/lived in Oley in 1757.

One final note-Peter's children didn't stay around Oley very long-legend says they tended to get away from the old man as soon as possible, males and females. Peter's wife Margaret apparently outlived her husband for several years, since there's a record of the death "Widow Reiff" around 1790 in the rocky Rockland Twp., Berks Co. where Peter lived.

Just one further thought on the Mennonite relationship of Hans George Reiff that Davis suggests-an article which describes the European origins of the three Mennonite immigrant brothers, Hans, Abraham and (John) Jacob Reiff is covered in the journal "Mennonite Family History Vol XI, No. 1 (Jan. 1992) published 5 years before Davis' Vol. 2 book. Two of the three lived for some years very near Hans George and his children. I'd be glad to send you a copy of that article if your wish.

Regards

Harry Reiff

3 November 2002

Harry Reiff

Dear Andy;

Since I haven't heard from you since February of this year, I presume your interests have strayed from your Reiff heritage. I hope not.

At any rate, I wanted to inform you the Fred Riffe (author of the 1995 tome, 'Reiff to Riffe Family in America') has now published another volume with same title, followed by 'Volume II' and then, on the cover, "Ancestors and Descendants of Mennonite brothers Hans, John Jacob and Abraham". Should you be interested, the book can be purchased for $49.00 from "Reiff to Riffe Family in America", Box 504324, Marathon Florida 33050.

Fred quotes both Davis' book and Mrs. Best's article in 'Mennonite Family History' for the European origins of the three brothers, but correctly states that the connection is not firmly proven. He does suggest that more research into the European origins of both Mennonite and Protestant Reiff family branches is needed.

There are already several internet web pages which unequivocally connect Hans George Reiff to the same 1600's family that produced the three Mennonite immigrants, as Davis' book suggests. No proof is cited in these web pages.

So the matter of the European parentage/origin of Hans George Reiff is still open, waiting for some searcher who has the time and access to German civil and church records for the 1600's, particularly for the Palatinate area. What a challenge!

Best regards,

Harry Reiff

4 November 2002

Dear Harry,

As you see I am enclosing another draft of Conrad Reiff somewhat amplified. There is still material I have not consulted, but I'm trying to move on in this saga.

I was very interested to learn from your last letter that you attend and are historian of the Boehm Reformed Church. i never meant to go so deep with Conrad since Jacob was the main issue. To me Jacob Reiff presents a far more complex and textured problem which could take substantially longer.

I appreciate your question as to whether Catharine Reiff might have been married to Daniel, but I don't have anything to add about it as this time. What I want to know is what document did Anna Maria Reiff write "in a neat hand in English" in 1773 as reported by Mary Jane Hershey in the Mennonite Historical bulletin of October 1995 and etc?

I have come into the possession of Henry Mack's Ledgers of 1876-1898, given to me by my aunt Elizabeth, his granddaughter. She also gave some books with John B. Bechtel's signature and also his father's. I enclose a little precis of this connection. Withal it occurs to me that an antidote to Conrad Reiff would be the Bechtel-Mack Mennonite connection, one also that is a lot closer to me so I am presently collecting materials in that regard, the History of the Hereford Congregation, the Life of Noah Mack. I have Henry Mack's inventory of the graveyard at Bally and Noah's short life of Andrew Mack. I mention this in case you have been into these fields.

Meanwhile I'm continuing to read around in Skippack, etc.

Best Wishes,

Andy

20 November 2002

Harry Reiff

Dear Andy,

The draft is quite a comprehensive review of the Oley valley and the individuals therein. Most interesting, particularly about Conrad Reiff, about who I'd never researched much. Enclosed is a review by Don Yoder of a book which describes the village of Lambsheim (in the Palatinate) and some of the persons who lived there in the late 1600's and early 1700's particularly Bauman and Kuhlwein. Note that John Philip Boehm lived there for some time (he was born in Hochstadt in Hesse), married Anna Maria Stehler in Lambsheim, and then moved to Worms around 1715, from which town he emigrated to America. Although Boehm wasn't ordained until 1729 (by the Dutch Reformed Church in New York), he vigorously denounced those persons who encroached on his "turf". Particularly, he battled Count von Zinzendorf, the Moravian church founder in Bethlehem Pa., who attempted to collect all sects in southeast Pa. into one grand church, presumably the Moravian church. Boehm defeated him, and he returned back to Bethlehem.

The statement that "Anna Reiff wrote in English" was first made in print in the James Heckler book published in 1888-"The history of Harleysville and Lower Salford Township". The entire quote from that book is "There has been some inquiry as to who his [Jacob Reiff] wife was, but it is not known. She probably was a woman of some distinction because she wrote a neat hand in English, which German women could not do".

The only document in English that I know of that may have been written by Anna Reiff is the Hans George Reiff will, now in the files in Philadelphia City Hall. Since the will was probated in 1727, it is unlikely that it was written by Jacob's wife Anna, but possibly by Jacob's mother Anna Maria. No proof of who or when; and, additionally, I've heard that the original will was in German, but no proof of that either. Some years ago I read one of Henry Dotterer's reports from his European travels in which he noted the possibility that Hans George Reiff married Anna Maria, the educated daughter of a Dutch Reformed church man. I'm still searching in my files for the copy of that report, and if/when I find it I'll send you a copy.

Best regards,

Harry

February 13, 2003

Dear Harry,

Those are some momentous things you have said.

Boehm says the church met in "Jacob Reiff's private house" before Weiss came.

What I'm trying to find out is could the pre-Weiss church also have first met in Hans George's house? Didn't all the brothers (and sister) live with the father before he died, especially if he owned those 200 acres by 1717? Or had Jacob established his own place before the father died, as you guess, and they never met at Hans George's? Heckler says he thinks the church met at Indehaven's. If Jacob had his own farm that would be good reason for George to get the father's place. Of course Heckler says Jacob owned it by 1741.

The reference to the 1717 Ziegler deed with one boundary on the border of Hans George Reiff—you don't mean Hans Reiff but Hans George, yes? And this was Michael Ziegler? Where is this deed? Forgive me, I'm just double checking.

As to the 1727 recording of the 534 acres, you agree that Jacob would not have sailed in December, but you are saying that he wouldn't have had to be in Philadelphia for the recording of the deed? But Boehm says that it was Jacob Reiff who introduced Weiss into the Skippack congregation. Reiff says he left in 1727, Weiss arrived in Philadelphia September 21, 1727 so the earliest Reiff could have sailed was the fall. Not a lot of difference, but was it even possible to sail in the winter? Help!

About Hans George's mark. He would not have to write English to sign his name. Pennypacker says that his was "a neat signature" on the Mennonite trust agreement of 1725. I just pose questions cause I don't know anything about it, but what if he made the 'mark' because he was too sick to sign? You have seen all these things first hand, but apparently he signed Hans George Reiff on that prior occasion. Is there another explanation for the JR? If the J stands for John that implies he is writing English.

This is important to me because of what Riffe says: "In the time when many of the colonists were unable to read and write, John George Reiff was considered an educated man…he was more then helpful in assisting the poorer immigrants, particularly those of the Mennonite faith…he helped organize and build the Salford Mennonite Meetinghouse" (19). Is this just hyperbole. What other poor immigrants did he assist? How did he help organize and build besides signing his name?

What I was looking for here was that he did write English, like his son, Jacob. I'm sinking badly on that I think.

Was the Mennonite Trust Agreement written originally in English or German? Nobody ever says who translates this stuff, leaving the question open in a sort of a way.

That he married an educated daughter of the Dutch Reformed minion is really provoking. It would establish his education too. I wish somebody could get that Dotterer ms. into the open. Establishing his education establishes Jacob's too. It adds a fact to all this conjecture. The facts are few.

Here follows a sample of the directions I was tracking before your letter. Maybe it helps you understand why I'm asking these questions and trying to combine father and son.

"In his witnessing the momentous Mennonite Meetinghouse Trust there is evidence that Hans George was educated, trusted and well known. His early involvement with the German Reformed church of Skippack also suggests citizenship.

According to Heckler what set Jacob apart from his fellows was a "great force of character." This would become more evident in the religious tests he was to face. But Heckler also cites him among the "reasonably well educated" men of Lower Salford Township including "Rev. George Weiss and Rev. Balthasar Hoffman in the Schwenkfelder denomination; Dielman Kolb and Henry Funk in the Mennonite denomination and Jacob Reiff, the elder, in the Reformed church" (108).

In any event when he served as deputy for the probate of wills for the then undivided large area of Philadelphia County including "the interior townships, such as Salford, Hanover, Amity, Oley, Perkiomen and Skippack, Towamencin, Maidencreek, Saucon, Rockhill, Colebrookdale, Worcester, Providence and Franconia" (Dotterer, 31), "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).

Jacob Reiff spoke and wrote English and German fluently and probably Dutch since he traveled for those years in Holland. An example of how he was groomed by birthright by his father for his responsibilities may be seen in his probating among others, the will of Claus Jansen, the first Mennonite minister at Skippack. 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 of course the same trust which Jacob's father, Hans George Reiff had witnessed. Claus Janson's will, "dated June 1, 1739…was proven before Jacob Reiff, of Lower Salford, deputy register, October 30, 1745" (Heckler, 15). He was obviously acquainted with many of the associates of his father.

The first mention of his name, in the diary of Gerhard Clemens, July 2, 1723, confirms he was "a man of enterprise and public spirit" (Dotterer in Heckler, 33), for Dotterer says that since he "was 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 judges him thus to have been "a man of superior intelligence" (30). And Heckler agrees that he "stood high in the estimation of the leading men of the county" (27).

The Mennonite Trust Agreement

There is some tradition in Jacob Reiff's background for trustee work, specifically in the life of his father. The odds are that he was educated because his father was.

Correct written English was in short supply in Lower Salford in that day. Compare the German-English of the will of Christopher Dock: "my order is dit, to chose Man, two upright Man can do it, let them bring it in two like part and worth as good she can, and so likewise if any fruit, every a thing shall come in two like part to Receive each of my Children one part" (The Perkiomen Region II, 25). Referring to Dock's literacy in English, Heckler says his "education was in German" he "did not know what constituted good English" (Lower Salford, 52).

Riffe (I, 20) suggests that Hans George Reiff "assisted in the preparation" of the trust agreement that he also witnessed." "In the time when many of the colonists were unable to read and write, John George Reiff was considered an educated man" that is, we infer he was an educated man because he witnessed the agreement. Further, "he was more than helpful in assisting the poorer immigrants, particularly those of the Mennonite faith," and that he "helped organize and build the Salford Mennonite Meetinghouse" (19). Can we accept this proprietary claim that Hans George Reiff could read and write (English) merely from the assertion of Pennypacker (6) that he "wrote a neat signature?"

In designing the trust agreement, March 30, 1725, the trustees sought "to extend its purposes that the land should be held for the benefit of the poor of the Mennonites, and for the erection of a meeting house for the people of that sect, and, on the other hand to so restrict it, that only members in good standing in this meeting could act as trustees" (Pennypacker, 6).

Much was at stake in the agreement, Mennonites being a particular people, it is impossible to think that the witnesses were not carefully selected: "the witnesses were Hans George Reiff; a member of the German Reformed Church, who wrote a neat signature, and Antonius Heilman, a Lutheran living at the Trappe. Whether this selection of witnesses was the result of chance alone, or had some purpose, it is impossible to determine" (Pennypacker, 6). You would choose a man for this job based on his reputation as a man of honor, but you would also allow that he might help you in its execution. As an educated man Hans George might have been the hand that Englished the document, for while Pennebacker knew the conveyancing business, he could not have written the English of the trust agreement."

That last sentence is very desperate, especially if he didn't know English, especially if it wasn't written in English. What say you?

Thanks very much for sharing your expertise.

Sincerely,

Andy

1 March 2003

Harry Reiff

Dear Andy,

You raise a lot of good points, many of which, perhaps, can't be proved without legal or other records. There are very few of those, copies included, which are still available. There are some 'reliable' sources for some records or events.

One, a photocopy of the Michael Ziegler deed, is in the 1922 book by Ralph Beaver Strassburger titled "Strassburger Family and Allied Families in Pennsylvania". In the boundaries description, the Reiff land abutting the Ziegler land is named 'of Hans George Reiff', not just Hans Reiff. As you have noticed, there is often confusion in the literature involving Mennonite Hans Reiff and German Reformed Church Hans George Reiff. Mennonite Hans Reiff's farm was about a mile or so from that of Hans Georg's home and even closer to Jacob Reiff's presumed home, now call the Jacob Reiff Home/Park.

Another point is in the 1937 book "History of the Mennonites of the Franconia Conference", by J.C. Wenger. The Franconia Conference contains the Lower Salford Meetinghouse near Harleysville. According to Wenger, the firt Mennonite meetinghouse in this area was begun in 1705 very near the present village of Skippack. Both Skippack and Salford congregations used this location until the 1730's (ca. 1738) when Henry Ruth donated land near Harleysville for the Salford meetinghouse. Obviously, Hans George Reiff had no part in this since he died 10-11 years before that. It's doubtful that he had anything to do with the Skippack meetinghouse/congregation, even though he signed the Mennonite agreement as a witness. Certainly, he was not buried in the Salford Mennonite Cemetery, and there is no evidence that he was buried in the Skippack Mennonite cemetery, although his wife was. But, she died after her son Jacob (with whom she lived for the last years of her life) had changed from the German Reformed Church to the Skippack Mennonite meetinghouse, possibly because Jacob may have married Mennonite Anna Landis. I believe I told you of the Anna Landis theory that Jacob married the daughter of Skippack Mennonite Jacob Landis. Also, Jacob had become disillusioned of the German Reformed congregations after he was accused of thievery of the proceeds from his trip to Holland, Germany with the minister Jacob Weiss, and he may have changed religions in disgust. Back to Hans George, perhaps he was buried in his son Jacob's Skippack German Reformed Church on Jacob's land.

Finally, records show that a Dutch Reformed Church pastor from Bucks County held a meeting in 1710 in Whitemarsh Twp. in present Montgomery Co. (about 15-20 miles southeast of Skippack). And 10-15 persons (some Mennonite?) attended, but the Skippack area was still largely Mennonite. Refer to "The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography" No. XXXI No. 1, 1907 article entitled "Bebber's Township and the Dutch Patroons of Pennsylvania" by Samuel Pennypacker, with the help of Franklin Reiff. Incidentally, the German (not Dutch) Reformed Church had no official minister in America until about 1727, when ordained Rev. George Weiss arrived. Two years later (1729) John Philip Boehm was ordained in New York by the Dutch Reformed Church. Before 1727, the non-ordained school teacher John Philip Boehm helped organize and baptized, married, buried German Reformed parishioners in over 29 southeastern Pennsylvania churches he helped or organized.

The last (desperate) sentence in your letter suggests that Hans George Reiff, if he could read and write English may have been the main writer of th Mennonite Agreement. Perhaps so, but I'm skeptical: It is known that several of the early immigrants to germantown and then later in Bebber's/Skippack Twps. would read/write English. Unfortunately, I don't have good references for this, but enclose is a copy of an article on the early (late 1600/s early 1700/s) Duche/German immigrants, which (in the footnotes) may provide you with more references.

Andy you've done excellent work. I hope you keep it up.

Best regards,

Harry . No Need to return the enclosed article.

March 31, 2003

Dear Harry,

Thanks for your recent communiqués. May I raise two different questions herewith? The first concerns a legitimate problem about the identity of Jacob Landes Sr., but the second seems to me a wholly illegitimate confusion created by the Fred Riffe research team about Hans George Reiff's first appearance in the land records. Please help.

First I seek clarification over the identity of Jacob Landes Sr., putative father of Anna Reiff.

I. Heckler (Franconia, 38-9) gives a Jacob Landes, miller, who settled in 1727 in Franconia. He calls him Jacob Landes Sr. but says "the names of father and son being the same we cannot always distinguish which it was." On the one hand he says that Jacob Sr. sold the 187 acres on Indian Creek to his son Jacob in 1748 (39) and on the other that he and his wife Mary granted 113 acres, bought in 1734 with the mill, to son Jacob on 12/28/1772.

Is this just proof of confusion or is it a contradiction that this Jacob Sr. did not die in 1750?

II. Strassburger says that 3 Landis brothers, Benjamin, Felix and John emigrated in 1717 and that John Landis settled in Bucks Co. where he died in 1749-50. His daughter was Veronica Landis Bauer, his son Jacob his executor. Are a John and a Jacob are here confused?

Joel Alderfer says of the 1727 Jacob Landes that he was an early Salford settler who died in 1749, and that: "Jacob Landes is the ancestor of all the Landes-Landis' in the Franconia-Salford-Skippack area" (Hist. of the Salford Mennonite Cong., 21).

Query: which, if any of these, is the Jacob Landis refereed to who died in 1750 and whose settlement Anna Reiff signed?

III. Wenger (Franconia Conference) cites a Jacob Landes of Franconia who received a deed of trust with 16 others for the Salford Mennonites on 1/25/1738 who is also the one cited by Alderfer.

I need a push in the right direction.

Now the second problem concerns Mr. Riffe.

In Vol. II he reports a deed of 2/18/1718 where Hans Reiff bought 270 acres. Then he says that others have "mistakenly related that the 1718 purchase of land was made by John George Reiff" (34), but as you have alerted me, the deed of David Powell to Michael Ziegler, 1717, of 100 acres (reported by Straussburger, 419) says that "there is a certain Tract …Beginning at a reputed Corner of Hans George Reiff's land…." So his John George Reiff did already own land before Hans Reiff, but Riffe just doesn't know it? Please comment on this confusion.

Didn't you ever tell Riffe about Strassburger?

Another conundrum, Riffe says "John George Reiff's name is frequently written Hans Reiff or Hans George Reiff."

What? When was there ever a contemporary reference to a John, it was always Hans, yes? And likewise, when was it ever just Hans? Isn't he confusing the past with the present?

The problem for me is going to be establishing fact in the face of this confusion. Riffe says about the wrong 1718 purchase that it wasn't Hans George's and that only in 1724 did John George Reiff purchase and homestead "a tract of land that bordered the farm of Hans Reiff."

Meanwhile I'd like to push Hans George back even further.

Thanks again,

Where did they live before the land purchase of 1724?1) If the building was finished in 1728, and Boehm says they met before that in the private home of Jacob Reiff, here did the church meet from 1720 on? "says Hon. Jones Detweiler, who is considered good authority, "that the Skippack Reformed church was first organized in Skippack, and that for some time religious services were held in private houses among the settlers." Rev. Joh Philip boehm, who commenced his ministry about theyear 1720, undoubtedly was instrumental in orgainizing the church right here in the public house of Gerhard In den Hoffen, for if he had room enough to accommodate travelers, he also had room enough to hold religious services. "Heckler, Hist of Skippack, 8. Also, p. 7 ",the In den Hoffens were not Mennonites but Reformed, and were instrumental in organizing the Skippack Reformed Church."2) Was it at Hans George's? Did they then move to Jacob's after the father's death? 3) Did not Jacob, brothers and sister live with their mother and father at the time of his death? Jacob's land of 1727 was next to his father's of 1724. 4) The will does not say George gets the property. Why does Heckler say George got the 200 acre homestead?5) How can the inventory of it all come only to 170 pounds when Jacob has to pay 175 pounds to his mother, and anyway Hans George paid 485 pounds for the 200 acres?6) Jacob's first land, bought December l, 1727-then bang off to Holland?Jacob Reiff was the youngest of four brothers, the favorite of his father.

More about the JR: the more I think about it the more it seems like this is Jacob Reiff witnessing his father's mark, or if you like, Jacob Reiff applying the seal, implying his father's infirmity.

15 Mach 2003

Harry Reiff

Andy,

I thought the enclosed reprint might be of some interest to you. It was sent to me some years ago by John Ruth, a Mennonite historian/writer/publisher who lives near Lower Salford Twp., Montg. Co.

The reprint concerns essentially the three immigrant brothers, about who much is already known.

At the least it will refresh your German language translational abilities.

Regards,

Harry Reiff

March 31, 2003

Dear Harry,

First I seek clarification over the identity of Jacob Landes Sr., putative father of Anna Reiff.

IV. Heckler (Franconia, 38-9) gives a Jacob Landes, miller, who settled in 1727 in Franconia. He calls him Jacob Landes Sr. but says "the names of father and son being the same we cannot always distinguish which it was." On the one hand he says that Jacob Sr. sold the 187 acres on Indian Creek to his son Jacob in 1748 (39) and on the other that he and his wife Mary granted 113 acres, bought in 1734 with the mill, to son Jacob on 12/28/1772.

Is this just proof of confusion or is it a contradiction that this Jacob Sr. did not die in 1750?

V. Strassburger says that 3 Landis brothers, Benjamin, Felix and John emigrated in 1717 and that John Landis settled in Bucks Co. where he died in 1749-50. His daughter was Veronica Landis Bauer, his son Jacob his executor. Are a John and a Jacob are here confused?

Query: which, if any of these, is the Jacob Landis refereed to who died in 1750 and whose settlement Anna Reiff signed?

VI. Wenger (Franconia Conference) cites a Jacob Landes of Franconia who received a deed of trust with 16 others for the Salford Mennonites on 1/25/1738 who is also the one cited by Alderfer.

I need a push in the right direction.

Now the second problem concerns Mr. Riffe.

Didn't you ever tell Riffe about Straussburger?

Another conundrum, Riffe says "John George Reiff's name is frequently written Hans Reiff or Hans George Reiff."

What? When was there ever a contemporary reference to a John, it was always Hans, yes? And likewise, when was it ever just Hans? Isn't he confusing the past with the present?

Meanwhile I'd like to push Hans George back even further.

Thanks again,

Where did they live before the land purchase of 1724?1) If the building was finished in 1728, and Boehm says they met before that in the private home of Jacob Reiff, here did the church meet from 1720 on? "says Hon. Jones Detweiler, who is considered good authority, "that the Skippack Reformed church was first organized in Skippack, and that for some time religious services were held in private houses among the settlers." Rev. Joh Philip boehm, who commenced his ministry about the year 1720, undoubtedly was instrumental in organizing the church right here in the public house of Gerhard In den Hoffen, for if he had room enough to accommodate travelers, he also had room enough to hold religious services. "Heckler, Hist of Skippack, 8. Also, p. 7 ",the In den Hoffens were not Mennonites but Reformed, and were instrumental in organizing the Skippack Reformed Church."2) Was it at Hans George's? Did they then move to Jacob's after the father's death? 3) Did not Jacob, brothers and sister live with their mother and father at the time of his death? Jacob's land of 1727 was next to his father's of 1724. 4) The will does not say George gets the property. Why does Heckler say George got the 200 acre homestead?5) How can the inventory of it all come only to 170 pounds when Jacob has to pay 175 pounds to his mother, and anyway Hans George paid 485 pounds for the 200 acres?6) Jacob's first land, bought December l, 1727-then bang off to Holland?Jacob Reiff was the youngest of four brothers, the favorite of his father.

More about the JR: the more I think about it the more it seems like this is Jacob Reiff witnessing his father's mark, or if you like, Jacob Reiff applying the seal, implying his father's infirmity.

[no date,

reply to letter of 31 March 2003]

Andy,

Re your e-mail, my responses to your questions are:

#1. Hans George's house was in present Skippack Township, not too far from the present "Reiff Homestead" property. George was Hans George's oldest son, but he died without issue, and I suspect the house may have gone to Jacob's second son George. I have no proof of that.

#2. As for Jacob's house, I suspect that it was the present "Reiff Homestead" house. I believe but can't prove that he bought the 534 acres (in several pieces) before his father died. The date 1727 reflects the recording of the purchase, not the date of purchase. The land was still in Philadelphia Co., and often years went by before the farmers went all that distance to Phila (quite a trip in those days) to record the purchase/ownership. Thus, Hans George's property was not recorded until 1724, but a 1717 Ziegler deed notes one boundary was "land of Hans George Reiff".

#3. I've never seen any data on these two persons-Johannes and Veronica. Speculation is that she was Jacob's wife, but if so, she must have died quickly after arriving in America.

$4. The JR on Hans George Reiff's will was in red wax, rather a cockeyed mark, and I believe represents Hans George's 'mark' since he apparently couldn't write in English. Note that he doesn't write HR nor HGR, but the J, for English John. More about that below.

Now for your problems with Fred Riffe and his two books. I assume you've gotten the second one, which covers the descendants of the three emigrant Mennonite brothers. It also describes the European origins of the three brothers. I should mention that Fred follows the suggestion of Richard Warren Davis that Hans George was the son Uli (Ulrich) Ryff and Cathri Zashler, who migrated from Switzerland (Wadenswil) to the Pfalz and were of the German Reformed faith. Sever Reiff websites have picked up on this and extended the relationship back to the 1580 Hans Reiffer as noted in the LDS book, "Reif, Reiff, Reifer Familienchronik", by Werner Hug. I think I've mentioned that book to you before.

Getting back to Fred Riffe and his book (Vol. 1), he's made a number of erroneous assignments, particularly in the early 1700's. He's made mistakes, too, in his second book. A humerous one is the picture on p. 200 of an "Unknown Confederate Soldier and Family". A friend of mine told me the picture was posed by her nephew and his wife some years ago, and she gave Fred the picture, noting that it was posed.

In spite of Fred's errors, he has done considerable work in local public records throughout many of the states east of the Mississippi. He reports these sources, and also the names of the individuals who have given him their family data. He's the first Reiff biographer to publish such a broad base. For example, my Reiff book was quite narrow-not a family history, but just a genealogical record of Jacob's descendants. And informing him of the errors would not accomplish anything.

Finally, about Hans George Reiff's wife Anna Maria. If indeed she wrote Hans George's will, she was surely educated. Now, the historian Henry Dotterer wrote several books in his historical journeys. Two the the published books are in the stacks of the Pennsylvania Historical Society in Philadelphia, but there is a third unpublished one which I saw about 10 years ago. They wouldn't let me make a copy of it, but as I recall, Dotterer recounted his visit to the Netherlands and the Dutch Reformed Church archives, where he found data that Hans George married an educated daughter of a church minion. I'll continue to try to find that info again.

Regards,

Harry Reiff

[at the time I wrote these sources on the bottom of this letter:

-Hist notes relating to the PA Reformed Church. Ed by H. Dotterer, 201p., 11900. The Balch Institute, BX 9496. P4#5

-Whitemarsh REformed Cong. in the Holland Archives. Microform. 7p.

-In the Albert M. Greenfield Microform and Media Center.

Call number BX 9496. P4 #5 1899. 1300 Locust St.]

7 April 2003

Dear Andy,

As always, you raise interesting questions. Let me respond with references. First, the Landis/Landes matter:

1. Certainly our Jacob Landes was not alive in 1772-that is another Landes or a date mistake.

2. John Landis of Bucks Co., d. ca. 1750, had a son John and a son Jacob. Sone Jacob d. in 1806 near Jersey Shore, Lycoming Co. Pa. Son of John Landis went to Montgomery Co.

There is a full chapter on John Landis in the Strssburger book, which I referred to in my last letter. I don't think there is any confusion-this John does not belong to the Jacob Landes that Joel Alderfer cites.

Enclosed is a brief article that Joel wrote and published. Note particularly page 7 on Yellis Landes, the sonof Jacob Landes Jr. and Mary Cassell, and grandson of Jacob Landes Sr. I hope that straightens out your concern about "our" Jacob Landes.

Incidentally, keep Joel's article-I have no use for it.

As for the land owner question, I agree that Hans George probably bought his land before Hans, and that Fred Riffe didn't know of the deep photo in the Strssburger book. (incidentally, enclosed is a copy of the deed itself from the Strassberger book). Fred doesn't hesitate to jump to conclusions, and so I ignore some of his conclusions like this one.

However, the possibility that Hans George may have been the child of Uli Ryeff/Reiff and his wife, who migrated to the Pfalz and joined th German Reformed Church there, cannot be ignored. I hope somebody can find the records (if they exist) which could confirm this. Possibly church and/or municipal records may be in the the LDS files in Salt Lake City. Perhaps a visit to Germany ala Davis might benecessary. Nor for me, however, I was there once in '44/'45.

Regards,

Harry

April 25, 2003

Dear Harry,

I'm treading water in the enclosed piece about George C. Reiff. I do not yet have independent confirmation that Bishop Hunsicker served partly concurrent terms in the military and the ministry. If this is true it seems to be astonishing. I was just trying to understand George C. when I came on this, but it opens up the way a little for Jacob Reiff. Perhaps you know of additional details about George C.? It is also possible I am somewhere in error. Love to have your opinion. I am also seeking other clarifications.

I. I'm not sure exactly what the division of Hans George's estate was from the language of the will. Was the estate divided equally, or only the residue? Davis says, "he makes his son Jacob his sole executor and gives him all his land, implements and worldly goods. He then gives "sons…5 equal shares of what is left…" (348). But Heckler says, the "premises went to his oldest son George…but in 1741 we find this property belonging to…Jacob" (24). In your view is it correct to say that Jacob got the whole estate?

II. I am basically striking out with George Hendricks Reiff. I have acquired many of the sources you've mentioned in the past to good purpose. Do you have any such ideas about George H.?

Thanks very much for the Joel Alderfer pamphlet and your thoughts on Jacob Landis. I have written to Glenn Landis to see if there are any further developments.

Sincerely,

AE Reiff

8 June 2003

Harry Reiff

Dear Andy,

Sorry for the delay in answering your April Letter.

I'm afraid I know very little about George C. Reiff. In fact, all I have on him came from the historian Andrew Berky, who married my cousin Lucille Reiff. Back around 1960, Berky sent me a copy of his research on his wife's line back to Hans George Reiff, which is what stimulated me to start working our Reiff lines. He had only a brief paragraph on George C., and I didn't pursue it to any significant extent. My interest originally was to establish the genealogical lines on back and to include the few details I found which seemed of interest.

My comments would be similar for George Hendricks Reiff - I accepted the brief writeup that Berky had prepared. I did pursue back for several generations the Hendricks line-quite interesting, for it took me back into the Crefeld settlers of Germantown and some of their families.

Andy, you have done much more research on my Reiff line than Andy Berky or any other Reiff descendant that I know of. A appreciate very much the data you've described and written. Although I had identified the maternal lines back several generations for George H., George C., Jacob S(chwenk) and Abraham W(eiss) (my grandfather), the detail you've provided has been invaluable for me.

I should mention that my grandfather Abraham Weiss Reiff married a Lutheran, and therefore left the Mennonite religion and joined a Lutheran church.

I've included a copy of Andy Berky's work, just as a matter of interest.

Best regards,

Harry.

P.S. After looking over my copy of the Berky work, it isn't possible to photocopy the pages-the typewritten pages are too aged (ca. 50 years). I'll have to recopy the pages, which will take some time. H.

July 2, 2003

Dear Harry,

Thanks for your recent letter. I am in the midst of summer tennis travels which is a good time for editing but not writing. Just for your amusement I enclose a letter I sent in response to Glenn Landis after your tip some months ago. He has not yet answered back but I hope to learn more of his work.

All the best.

[to Glenn Landis]

March 31, 2003

Dear Glenn Landis,

Since I am in communication with Harry Reiff about historical and genealogical matters, last year he sent me a copy of your letter concerning Anna Landes Reiff, which I have been thinking about ever since.

I'm wondering whether you have gotten any feedback that has advanced your thinking in this. He also sent a copy of the photocopy of the estate settlement from which I judge that it is water stained and folded. I guess those are your fingers holding it down? I would love to be able to read it. Do you perhaps have a fair transcribed copy? Under what conditions was it found?

I am involved in Jacob Reiff the Elder's public life, having finished a long biography of his brother Conrad. Harry speculates, as you do, about where Jacob Reiff worshipped after the Reformed fiasco, whether or not, and to what extent he might have been Mennonite affiliated. I'd like to know more about this.

It is amazing to me how much good information exists about these mutual ancestors.

Yours truly,

AE Reiff

[to Glenn Landis]

April 12, 2003

Dear Glenn,

The photographs of the "scribe" and/or witness papers that Jacob Reiff executed sound like a gold mine. What will be the final disposition of your work? How much is complete? Are all of these instruments in English? Is it by handwriting comparisons that you are think Jacob Reiff wrote the first document? Certainly the date fits his career as deputy registrar, usually ascribed 1743-48, but probably earlier and later than that.

It almost seems like the Reiffs were a family of scribes. Heckler says Jacob's wife, Anna, "probably was a woman of some distinction because she wrote a neat hand in English, which German women could not do" (27). This "neat hand" comment is practically identical to what Samuel Pennypacker said about Hans George Reiff's signing of the Mennonite Trust Agreement of 1725: "Hans George Reiff; a member of the German Reformed Church, who wrote a neat signature…" ("Beber's Township and the Dutch Patroons").

The language of these instruments often reveals a haphazard command of English, filled with odd misspellings and syntax. Heckler thus disparages Christian Allebach's will "for the sake of showing our readers the scholarship of men who wrote wills in those days (Lower Salford, 59). This will was probated in 1746 before Jacob Reiff, but presumably not written by him.

But the verbal texture of the Mennonite Trust Agreement reveals a facility with English much superior to the poor English the alleged drafter of that document shows in his letters. Pennypacker says this was Heinrich Pannebecker. He thinks Pannebecker set up the Mennonite Trust Agreement, March 30, 1725, using the forms and seal of Pastorius (6), and that the Mennonites must have been "acting under the guidance of some one more or less familiar with the forms of conveyancing" (6). If all this is granted, that Pannebecker wrote a conveyancer's hand, drew deeds and spoke three languages, his written English was a pidgin Dutch-English dialect, evident in a letter of 1742:

"M. Frend Ed Ward Shippen. My keind Respek too Juer too let Ju under Stan tha I haffe spoken with the totters of Abraham op den Graff an by ther words are willing too singe Jur dees as ther broders haffe don…"(31). But I don't know whether the original Agreement was in German or not.

The other choice, a German-English dialect such as that in the will of Christopher Dock is more common. Heckler says Dock's "education was in German" that he "did not know what constituted good English" (Lower Salford, 52): "my order is dit, to chose Man, two upright Man can do it, let them bring it in two like part and worth as good she can, and so likewise if any fruit, every a thing shall come in two like part to Receive each of my Children one part" (The Perkiomen Region II, 25).

So there was something of a scarcity of literate English writers in the area. Thus the fact that Hans George signed the Mennonite Trust Agreement with a neat hand may imply something more, that is, maybe he Englished the whole thing, but Jacob of course could also have done it.

These speculations lead me to consider the education of the Reiff family scribes and how they got their English. Heckler places Jacob among the "reasonably well educated" men of Salford, the "Rev. George Weiss and Rev. Balthasar Hoffman in the Schwenkfelder denomination; Dielman Kolb and Henry Funk in the Mennonite denomination and Jacob Reiff, the elder, in the Reformed church" (108). Presumably a really well educated man would be Pastorius, who wrote in Latin. But how did Jacob get "reasonably well educated?" Beyond his native intelligence, a background is suggested, even a family avocation in trustee work, so maybe he was educated because his father was. But maybe it was his mother too. Harry Reiff remembers an unpublished ms. of Dotterer's in the PA Historical Society in Philadelphia where Dotterer "recounted his visit to the Netherlands and the Dutch Reformed Church archives, where he found data that Hans George married an educated daughter of a church minion." Harry also says of Anna Maria that "if indeed she wrote Hans George's will she was surely educated."

Still that is a pretty discriminating list. Rev. George Weiss, not to be confused with the Reformed minister, George Michael Weiss, was a skilled dialectician who defended the Schwenkfelders in Silesia against the counter-reformation efforts, fleeing for his life after besting his Roman Catholic adversaries and was the group's first minister in America (Heckler, 107-8). Rev. Balthasar Hoffman was more learned, knew the ancient languages and was with Weiss in his embassy to the Emperor which lasted five years: "Hoffman delivered no less than seventeen memorials to the royal ruler" (Heckler, 95). Heckler calls him "a man of eminent wisdom and piety, and left behind him a catalogue of his writings, embracing fifty-eight tracts all on theology and practical religion, besides eighty-three letters on various kindred topics" (96). The Mennonites Dielman Kolb and Bishop Henry Funk were the proofreaders for the edition of the Martyrs' Mirror of 1748-51 printed by the Ephrata Cloister (Noah H. Mack, 10).

As to whether Jacob turned Mennonite, I cannot yet participate wholeheartedly in his rebaptism. If a thing fits it will fit without violence and if it doesn't fit that's because it doesn't. He was friends with lots of people and respected by everybody not in the battle against him. For sure he was Reformed. But a body in motion tends to stay in motion, so for me, if he was Reformed he continued so, unless there is a specific information.

Certainly he and his father had close ties to Mennonites. Father and son were kindred spirits, Jacob, youngest son, being sole executor of his father's will. When the Reformed Hans George signed the Mennonite Trust Agreement as a witness, I think it was because the Mennonites respected him. That his wife was buried in the Mennonite cemetery after her funeral was held in the Mennonite Meeting House is a sign of friendship and service, but not affiliation. Sure Jacob probated, among others, the will of Claus Jansen, the first Mennonite minister at Skippack. (Heckler, Lower Salford, 15[insert in Adams Apple]). Yes, Hans George's neighbors (cousins?), Hans Reiff and Abraham Reiff, were long standing members of the Salford Mennonites and probably related, same name and neighbors, as Davis says, (Emigrants, Refugees and Prisoners, 347). And of course "many of his grandchildren married Mennonites" (Davis, 348).

Harry Reiff sounds like he's decided that "she died after her son Jacob (with whom she lived for the last years of her life) had changed from the German Reformed Church to the Skippack Mennonite meetinghouse, possibly because Jacob may have married the daughter of Skippack Mennonite Jacob Landis." And Harry says "the Mennonite line seems to me to be quite clear from George III down…" which he bases on the Reiff-Hendricks marriage You too say that "the younger son George married Elizabeth Hendricks and his family followed with the Mennonite Church." But it is subjunctive to argue that if George III were Mennonite by marriage, Jacob the Elder could have been!

Shouldn't we think the Mennonites of that time were so eclectic? Didn't they ask Hans George to be a witness and didn't they lend their sanctuary for a Lutheran pastor to perform the funeral of a Reformed widow? Jacob could have indicated support of the Wentz church, which even his prodigal brother Conrad did, contributing the largest sum (The Perkiomen Region, I, 39-44), but he didn't. He could have worshipped at Muhlenberg's church, Muhlenberg respected him, said he "could discern good as well as evil in others" (Journals I, 353), but he didn't, although his sister did.

Jacob and his children don't live Mennonite lives. Jr. was a private in the Philadelphia County Militia in the Revolution, the first representative of Montgomery County in the Pennsylvania Assembly (1786-1789). George, in spite of marrying Mennonite Elizabeth Hendricks in 1764, served in the same Company as Jacob Jr. in 1780. His grandson, that is George C., enlisted in the War of 1812 at the age of 19 or 20. That's not a nonresistant heritage.

But the failure to specifically track Jacob's faith after his religious trials could in no way disallow his marriage to the Mennonite Anna Landis. That's apples and oranges. As you say, it is obvious that there was an Anna Reiff, the daughter of Jacob Landis. I think it is significant that Jacob's Anna Reiff is denoted as such on her tombstone. Not that more is needed, but she is also Anna Reiff, 1743, on the board found in the attic of the old mill (Heckler, Lower Salford, 29). . Jacob had an Anna. Anna had a Reiff. If a=c and c=b then a=b. I think what you are doing can constitute new ground and could unearth unforeseen conclusions.

Sincerely,

P.S. Harry had sent me your original To Whom It May Concern letter and the first page of the Jacob Landis' documents

July 11, 2005

Dear Harry,

It looks like the last letter of mine to you of 8 July 2003 did not get there.

Here is a view of my latest work.

Culminating this past Christmas in the settling of my Aunt Elizabeth Reiff Young’s estate, I had been working on family documents that she would reveal from time to time, but there was a huge remainder, especially old German books discovered in her attic, signed and partly annotated by her maternal great grandfather, John B. Bechtel and his father Abraham, esp. Johann Arndt’s, Wahren Christenthem (1832) and Die Wandelnde Seele (1833). There were about a dozen German works in all, the earliest 1745, songbooks, catechisms, etc., interesting in themselves, but more so in reconstructing the thoughts of these 19^th century Pennsylvania Dutchmen.

I could not help but be curious then, when in piecing the parts of this puzzle together, the trail also led to discovery of a diary kept by Peter S. Mack, her grandfather Henry’s brother, Lutheran pastor at Hummelstown c. 1875, and then to the extant German letters (c.1870-1900) of Mennonite Bishop Andrew S. Mack, another brother of Henry’s (which in the past fortnight I have procured translations of), which, added to Henry Mack’s Ledger (in English), kept over the same period, made the terrain wider and more definite than I had anticipated, leading as it did into all kinds of rural social, personal and religious lifestyles of an era long gone.

Another discovery in this train was my Aunt’s collection of family embroideries belonging to her paternal grandmother, Catherine G. Rosenberger, whose family, since she was an orphan, had been unidentified (Gehman). These not only seemed to identify her when correlated with census data given me by another such generous person as yourself, but also led to one of the major Pennsylvania Dutch truths, the meaning of the symbolism of the tulip and the heart, for that was the image (in white) of one of the best embroideries of Margaret Gehman. It feels like these things are falling out of the sky like ripe apples into my hand, but it is always a surprise, so again, when the tulip that blooms from the heart circled back toward Wahren Christenthem and the German Pietists it caused me to enter my present state where I now at times attempt an understanding of that way of thinking that disappeared about 1850.

My aunt prided herself on being a 9^th generation Pennsylvania Dutchman and wrote somewhat herself on that subject. Most of the people implicated in her attic though were Mennonites going all the way back to Jacob the Elder on her paternal side (about whose Mennonism they do argue) and likewise in the maternal.

So I have been contemplating Skippack and Hereford especially in these particulars, but have not met any living souls who wade in this receding pond, but maybe it is a spring and a pool.

The PA Dutchmen are very…something. I suppose that you yourself are one, back to nth degree. So few of their publications, let alone manuscripts are translated. The chap who translated the Andrew Mack letters, Isaac R. Horst, had done the entire Jacob Mensch letter collection, but would not release it to the Mennonites for lack of a pecuniary recognition. He is a native PA Dutch in Ontario, truly, and has written contemporary books in the Dutch. If you can believe it! But never was there a better choice for this work. In all there are 1500 letters in the (handwritten, obviously) collection, all of which he has translated. To me he is a kind of a hero and I had no trouble in showing him the respect he deserves. The laborer is worthy of his hire, says the Book. I’m no Dutchman like of old, but I wish I had better insight into them. I always knew I had escaped, courtesy of my mother, who gave me the great Gaelic gift of blarney. But now I look back at them with a great many questions.

Thanks for so generously sending me your book. You might be ambivalent that in my own mind I am arguing that all the modern research stems from your efforts. As support for this, before you quarrel with it, isn’t Richard Warren Davis the first to state in print that Hans George Reiff is the referent for Michael Ziegler’s property in 1718, and doesn’t he himself say that Harry Reiff told him this in 1994? That’s the single most important fact in the whole story.

I’d love to hear from you anything you’d care to say about any or all of these Pennsylvania issues.

As to Jacob Reiff the Elder, so many versions of his thoughts, and sometimes exact quotes, occur in the letters of Rev. John Philip Boehm, that these letters practically constitute a primary source, so that with Reiff’s Defense and etc. a much fuller and fairer picture of the Elder is possible.

I am constantly writing of all these things.

Anyway I wish to you the words of Psalm 92.14 that you be green and supple in old age.

Dear Harry,

At one point in your letters you say that maybe library work at this point is needed as much as new research. That’s all this is, trying to put the clues you have given together with other things laying about.

June 30, 2005

Phoenix, AZ 85008

Dear Harry Reiff,

Here’s a check for a copy of your book, Reiff Families.

Would you also include a short bio of yourself with your other genealogical writings?

I’m trying to review the Reiff books bibliographically and yours seems to be the start of all the modern ones.

Yours,

AE Reiff

Harry Reiff

8 July 2005

Dear Andy;

After I received your letter, I checked my correspondence file, and found the correspondence you and and I exchanged several years ago concerning Reiff ancestry pertaining to the immigrant Hans George Reiff. The last letter from you was dated April 25, 2003, and my response was dated June 8, 2003. I'd not heard from you since that exchange.

The research and work you've done on the early Reiffs is excellent. However, I'm no longer actively engaged in further Reiff research-I'm too old (81)-and the two tomes by Fred Riffe covers the major Reiff lines remarkably thoroughly except for a few missing minor branches.

At any rate, I could not charge a thorough researcher like you for a copy of my book, and so I'm enclosing a copy gratis, along with the check you sent.

One other book my be of interest to you-Emigrant Refugees and Prisoners, Vol. II, by Richard Warren Davis (1997). This book covers Mennonite families in Germany who came to the United States. There are a few pages (18) on Reiffs.

You asked for a brief bio. Born-Allentown, Pa., 1924. Served three years in the army-1943-1946 in the 102nd Inf. Div., 9th Army, ETO. Education-Lehigh University, Bethlehem PA, B. S. Ch.E 1949, M.S. Chem, 1950. Joined Merck and Co. 1950-1952. Attended Univ. of Minnesota (Minneapolis) 1952-1955, Ph.D. Org Chem. Worked for Smith Kline & French Laboratories, Philadelphia PA, 1955-1984 (now known as Glaxo Smith Kline). Married Helen White 1947, 3 children (males), 3 grandchildren. Had brief summaries in "American Men of Science" and "Who's Who in the East).

I'll look forward to hearing from you and of the progress you've made on your Reiff research.

Best regards,

Harry Reiff

2005, no date

Harry Reiff

Dear Andy;

Thanks very much for the interesting letter you just sent to me. I think it is excellent that you continue to pursue the origins of the Hans George Reiff family.

As for me, I am in the grip of old age (81), and perhaps in the beginning of Alzheimer's, if my memory lapses are any sign. Time will tell.

Incidentally, I an 75& Pennsylvania Dutch, since my mother has half Dutch (Hartzell) and half New England (Dyer). Although my father was fluent in PA Dutch, my mother wasnot, and so my sister and I learned only a few phrases. Fortunately, neither my sister's career as a reporter for the Washington Post for 40 years, normy career as a research organic chemist were affected.

Anyhow, please continue to let me know of progress in your Reiff research. Although I rearly hear from other Reiff researchers, I shall let you know if anything interesting shows up.

With best regards,

Harry

November 30, 2005

Dear Harry,

I want to stay in touch with you. The correspondence I’ve had with you in the past years was such an immense encouragement not to mention the wealth of judgment and detail you have provided.

So I’m enclosing the first chapter of The Way Into The Flowering Heart.

This is a memoir of the quest for beauty in Mennonite folk and Pennsylvania Dutch art. It extends to 1830 and before in the specific memory of my Aunt, a woman who denied she was ever an intellectual or a watercolorist, but was both. Artist and antiquarian, she added her own to that collection of furniture and embroideries, books and quilts, letters, ledgers and manuscripts she inherited. Her conversations and her mother Anna’s histories, stories and anecdotes profoundly concern the folk and religious life of Mennonites of Berks County Pennsylvania. These archaic daylilies are set against the background of those ideas held dear by the Pennsylvania Dutch, the pietism of Johann Arndt, the mysteries of Jacob Boehm and the transcendentalism of their quiet, unquiet ways of peace.

In trying to understand my aunt and her prejudices and feelings I at last discovered what I hope is now the proper framework for the context of her life and others of the Pennsylvania Dutch. Since that is you too, I would love to hear how you react to these ideas.

Sincerely,

10 Dec 2005

Harry Reiff

Dear Andy,

My computer is not working, and so you get a handwritten letter.

I was impressed by the first chapter of the book your are preparing, "The Way Into the Flowering Heart", which you state is a memoir of the quest for beauty in Mennonite folk and Pennsylvania Dutrch art. But, I must tell you that my thoughts and background have centered on science and the search for an understanding of what occurs in the physical/chemical world. Thus, my Ph.D. was based on the reactions of anew class of chemical compounds known as carbenes. While I have a mild appreciationof art and relgiious matters, I am far from being a good judge of those ideas you state are held dear by the Pennsylvania Dutch.

In fact, I learned at an early age of the hardship and struggles of both maternal and paternal lines (my paternal line had a mild Mennonite connection), but I was stimulated to learn more of the physical (and chemical) world. Thus, genealogical research (scientific) fordata on my Pennsylvania precursors was more to learn of their activities/impacts on where they lived.

INcidentally, the one Mennonite line in my background resulted from the marriage of George Reiff III, a drandson of the immigrant Hans George Reiff, to Elizabeth Hendricks, a Mennonite. That Mennonite line continues util my grandfather Abraham W. Reiff, a Mennonite, married Cevilla Neidig, a Lutheran. Descendants of that marriage, including me, were Lutheran, not Mennonite.

Anyhow, I shall be interested in how you develop the "proper framework" for not only your aunt, but also for "others of the Pennsylvania Dutch", who lived more mundane lives in the modern world of the 20th (and 21st) century

With Best Regards,

Harry Reiff

P.S. Enclosed is a "Reiff Family History" involving Berks Co. origins. I was unsuccessful in relating it to early times. Please keep it since I really no longer add such material to my files.

Harry

PPS Sorry about the penmanship.

H.R.

Phoenix, AZ 85008

July 15, 2007

Dear Harry,

I found this Vorschrift of Jacob Reiff’s childhood in Mary Jane Hershey’s This Teaching I Present and made a copy for you in case you’ve not seen it, of course the plate in the book is in color. Enclosed are also her bio of him and a copy of the translation.

You have not heard from me in long while, but I have recently started back over all the Reiff materials to write a simple and coherent version of the issues in the lives of all the progenitors and their families starting from Hans George. Your letters to me about all this are still the greatest help.

Yours truly,

Andy Reiff

Tuesday, June 17, 2025

Early Philadelphia Reiffs, First Familes.

Reife nach Pennsylvanien. History of Skippack

Reife nach Pennsylvanien

German or English

Builders, Elders, Immigrants and Ben Franklin

Introduction

Notes -

Source Book and Bibliographical Guide for American Church History By Peter George Mode

The Commission of Jacob Reiff, 1730

Complaint Against Jacob Reiff, 1732

The Answer of Jacob Reiff, 1733

The Commission of Jacob Reiff, 1730

Complaint Against Jacob Reiff, 1732

The Answer of Jacob Reiff, 1733

The Reformed Pastors: Boehm

Reopened Inquest in the Matter of Jacob Reiff and the first Reformed Church of Philadelphia

Mennonites and Lutherans in the 21st Century: A Journey in Reconciliation is an ongoing process as of November 2018.

This is the background that occurs in the latest foray of the Elder Jacob who has been hoisted to justify the rapprochement of Lutherans and Mennonites at the 450th anniversary of their discord.

The brand of the Bernese Bear on the back of Henry Funck's grandfather of 1671 is not absorbed into the skin. The scar remains.

The apologies are a sham.

The apologies are a sham.

seeTHE SCRIBBLER: Amish ask for forgiveness from Native Americans

Bits and Pieces

Conrad Reiff in the Journey to Pennsylvania (1696 -1777, )

Conrad Reiff, The Journey to Pennsylvania (1756) and Outlaw Outtakes on Conrad Reiff, Oley and the Reiff Brothers of Schuippach

Berks History Research, LLC, a bookstore, tagged a product from their shop. on FB, Joseph L. Mitchell https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AAdjbGkeGXveMdQ&cid=CB88AD3F78E6EBA1&id=CB88AD3F78E6EBA1%21120136&parId=CB88AD3F78E6EBA1%21120129&o=OneUp

Conrad Gehr's Peccadilloes

Beissel and Baumann

1. I was seized by a shuddering or shivering

2. I got up and went to the pastor's. I looked so badly that the children ran after me

. A Christian is born of God and he who is born of God cannot sin. And God therefore has sent me into the world to show men how they may come to Him again.

4. Come to me, all persons in the whole world, be ye pious or impious;

5. Man simply and merely must be a poor sinner as he ignores God and knows Him not; he is to love Him and God is to be his treasure and yet he is dead to Him.

6. Christ announced the will of God to the people of that time in the same way that I announce it to people in these times, how they may be quit of sin.

7. Ye poor people! Christianity is not something as you think which can be taught, as all denominations in the world seem to think.

8. I also believe in a congregation here in this world which is not made of patches and chips but which is made holy and righteous.

8. I also believe in a congregation here in this world which is not made of patches and chips but which is made holy and righteous.

9. I have written all that a person has to do if he is to gain the best and never depart therefrom. Why God's Voice seems strange to you is because you stand in the first birth.

Newborns in the Cradle of Liberty, Oley 1720—

(something like this would have appeared as a sequel in Berks Co. Review is the editor had not changed)

Sunday, January 4, 2015

The Letters of Genealogist Harry E. Reiff

No comments: