Bio: Jacob Reiff the Elder (1698-1782)

Cider Press

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.

I.

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.

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.

AE Reiff

11 June 2017