USA > Pennsylvania > Montgomery County > A history of the Goshenhoppen Reformed charge, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania (1727-1819) > Part 15
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35
This affair disturbed my mind terribly at that time, but we appeared in town on the 6th of September last, as the day appointed by the high Sheriff. Wm. Lewis and Fisher are the two lawyers
188
History of the Goshenhoppen Charge
on the negro case. Mr. Lewis examined us, but found my testi- mony not to be that told him, but told us the case could not be tried now, but was put off.
· Andrew Maurer, who had been sued for said damages and thereby obliged to stand foremost on the congregation's part, did not take a lawyer till September court last, when he employed Andrew Allen to act on their behalf. The trial was to be had on the 8th of January, now past, when I was obliged to go to town again, at the request of Mr. Allen, for Mr. Lewis had acquitted me in September court, since I could not give my evidence in favor of the said negro-man's cause before September last. I had not been in town for the space of five years together, chiefly by reason of my weak condition of health. When on calling at Mr. Allen's he informed us that we should have some deed or agreement or writings to show that the owners of the land had either sold or at least promised the same to the congregation, in order to show it as their title to the land at court, without which he could not consent to let the trial go on. This was the reason that we called at your house three times on the same morning, the 8th of January past, in order if possible to obtain such writings. But by reason of your indisposition, we were prevented to speak to you about it, or to inform you of the importance of it, so that Mr. Allen thought it suitable to remove the cause to the Supreme Court, but we find that Mr. Lewis bound over his witnesses to appear again on the 9. March next, as at the next close of the Common Pleas Court. So I have now thought necessary to inform you of the circum- stances of this affair, in order that you may observe how trouble- some the negroman hath already been to the said congregation who always have been and are yet ready to agree with you about the land and pay for it and have been long soliciting for it. For I conclude from the examination made on me by Mr. Lewis, that they intend yet to lay claim on the improvements, to which I think by no means that the negro can have a right, since whatever he did thereon, while a slave, they had the full use thereof, during their stay thereon ; and I don't doubt, if you can spare time as to con- sider the matter all over again, you will be of the same opinion.
189
Second Letter of David Schultz
I am sorry to trouble you with this long detail, but I should think it a defect, if I should not do, what is possible in behalf of the congregation.
Well what we most humbly desire of you, Sir, to be done is this : That you would be pleased to make an agreement with some of the members of the said congregation and put the same in writing, for the said tract of 42 acres and allowance with . . . per land. I have made a new draught for the same to them, or if a deed could be made out now to the congregation, it will be found the better, before the time of the trial comes. Then we suppose all the vexations of the negro fellow and his supporters against the said congregation would terminate and be at an end. We think in these turbulent times we have and yet may expect trouble and calamity enough already.
We shall ever remain, dear Sir, your most affectionate and hum- ble servant.
D. SCHULTZE.
By some boastings dropt by said Gideon, it seems that his lawyers intend to scruple the validity of our title in general to the land at court.
All to Daniel Rundle, the 3rd February 1776, sent Febr. 6th pr. Andrew Maurer.
[VIII. LETTER OF DAVID SCHULTZE, ESQ., TO ANDREW ALLEN, EsQ., FEBRUARY 3, 1776. PRINTED IN THE Daily Norris- town Register, MARCH 6, 1883.]
To ANDREW ALLEN, ESQUIRE! 1776. February 3rd. Sir!
About the affair of the bearer hereof, Andrew Maurer, I have to inform you at first, since we could not speak to Mr. Daniel Rundle, when in town, by reason of his indisposition, who is one of the three parties or owners to the land in question, so I have now wrote a letter to him of the affair very circumstantially, and alleged the necessity to get either a deed for the premises if possible or at least an agreement signed from under their hands.
190
History of the Goshenhoppen Charge
I also wrote another letter to Thomas Pugh, who is executor for the last deceased Thos. Tresse, Junior, another of the said partners to the land.
I spoke to him about it when in town, who promised to do all in his power in favor of the congregation, as to John Margotroyd, as the third partner. We could not learn where he lives now. What Mr. Rundle's answer will be I cannot know. One diffi- culty may perhaps obstruct the affair, for those three parties have been at variance with each other for many years past, and not yet settled, which hath been the chief reason, that no deed could be got out ever since the dec'd of old James Margotroyd-otherwise this land would have been long ago paid for. If our proposal for a particular agreement should not succeed, we have yet in reserve the general agreement, made with Parsons, Ross and Greenway, in April 1749, which on certain conditions includes the whole tract of 13,000 acres, signed by their own and many of our hands. Though it may not suit so well now, than if a new particular one can be obtained.
We have further to mention, when on our return to town, we met the other three witnesses, that they then informed us, that on that afternoon Mr. Lewis had bound them over by recognizance in Mr. Biddle's offices, to appear and attend again on the 9th of March next, as at the close of the next Court of Common Pleas, as if the cause was then to be tried. Though as we understand from you, that the cause was removed to the Supreme Court, which we should like much better, in order to gain more time, for we cannot know what difficulty we may find or what time will be required to obtain what is required.
Now if you could prevail on Mr. Lewis, to send a written order to his three witnesses, Jacob Miller, Jacob Wissler and Ulrich Graber, not to attend on the said 9th of March next. Then they will stay at home, otherwise they will certainly attend for fear of falling into the same unwelcome disgrace as in August last.
For what reasons Mr. Lewis hath, that he then acted in this manner we cannot know, if to increase the costs or for some other advantage ?
191
Second Letter of David Schultz
So we humbly desire that you would be pleased to rectify this affair.
By some boasting words, dropt by that negroman, as I was told of when in town, I suspect that his lawyers intend to dispute the validity of our title in general to these lands, which I think is a matter of no concern at all to them, we had trouble enough in former times already, until the cause was decided by the Supreme Court, anno 1754 in favor of Parsons, Ross and Greenway. I could make out a large description of the whole, but I should now think it unnecessary, see paper No. 2.
It is strange to observe that these gentlemen Fisher and Lewis and their supporters, of whom Mr. Israel Pemberton is looked upon as their chief, under the applauded pretext by assisting the needy and oppressed, by their endeavors are doing a considerable injury to a large number of people, especially at a time, when the utmost necessity requires it for every one to be as cautious as pos- sible to avoid contentions nor to give offence to any.
I observed to you formerly, that I suspect those lawyers will perhaps lay claim again to that improvement, which if they do, it will seem so much the more strange, if they take for their founda- tion the foolish fancy of that old Irish low Dutch woman. I look upon them as gentlemen, who would proceed on good reasonings. They forget themselves so far, while under a laudable pretext, they are putting numbers to loss and unnecessary charges. This small tract of land will cost the people dear enough besides.
The whole affair about the estate of that deceased minister hath to my opinion not been transacted according to law, nor agreeable to his will, nor even (if I dare say) to equity, for agreeable to the law, will and equity, the half of his relict estate should have been transmitted to Germany to his relations, to his brother eldest son, which hath not been done.
There is a strong supposition that the minister had a good purse in ready cash, which was concealed at the appraisement by his widow and afterwards by the negroes, for she paid almost no debts contracted by his negroes during the four years she outlived her husband. Christian Schneider was after his death obliged to pay
192
History of the Goshenhoppen Charge
above a hundred pounds debts and costs, if he has been repaid, I did not inquire. It must be true, since that can be proved by living witnesses, thus running the estate so much in debt in so short a time by his negroes while all the produce of the premises were also left him, it will appear, that he was none of the best economists, by the congregation gratis benevolence.
Did any of his supporters consider the matter with more delib- eration, or think if any of their deceased tennants negroes should re-enter their premises and claim a right to their works done for their master, while slaves, how they would behave. I hope they would desist from what they are doing. Their own consciences (if any they have) would probably give them better instructions.
To MR. ALLEN Febr. 3, 1776.
CLAYU
CHAPTER VII.
THE PERIOD OF SUPPLIES, 1762-1766.
HEN Mr. Weiss died, the Goshenhoppen churches lost a faithful and able pastor. They struggled along for a few years with supplies, without being able to find a worthy successor.
At the Coetus of 1762, held on June 30 and following days at New Hanover,
three elders from Old and New Goshenhoppen and Great Swamp were admitted and reported that these three congregations would remain inseparably together. They then urgently asked that a minister of the Coetus be given to them in place of their faithful pastor, Do. Weiss, now deceased. And if they might be permitted to name the minister they would choose Do. Otterbein. The Reverend Coetus took this under consideration and promised them to make known the answer through Do. Leydich. After they were dismissed Do. Otterbein refused their request because of trifling reasons.
As Otterbein declined to serve Goshenhoppen, Leydich took his place. This is evident from the first entry in the second New Goshenhoppen record book, which reads :
Church Record for the Congregation of New Goshenhoppen, from the year in which Rev. Weiss died [1761] [containing the
14
193
194
History of the Goshenhoppen Charge
names of] all the children, who from that year to the year 1766 were baptized by me, Jacob Riess, Leyte [Leydich] and Michel and also those of later years.
Taking the statement in the Coetus minutes and this en- try in the church record together, the most probable infer- ence is that Mr. Leydich followed Weiss immediately. In view of the willingness of the congregations to apply to the Coetus for a minister, the most natural supposition is that a minister of the Coetus first supplied them after the death of Weiss and that, when he was no longer able to hold them, they drifted into the hands of independent ministers.
I. THE MINISTRY OF REV. JOHN PHILIP LEYDICH, 1762-1763 (?).
John Philip Leydich was in 1762 pastor of Falkner Swamp and Providence (now St. Luke's at Trappe), Montgomery County, and of Vincent, Chester County.
John Philip Leydich was born April 28, 1715, and bap- tized May 5 of the same year, at Girkhausen, near Berle- burg, in Westphalia.172 He was the son of the Rev. Leonhard Leydich, then pastor at Girkhausen. John Philip Leydich studied for the ministry and in course of time became assistant to his father. In July, 1748, he appeared before the Synod of South Holland, then held at Briel, where he was commissioned for service in Pennsyl- vania. We next meet him in Philadelphia. Schlatter in his Journal states :173 "On the 15th of September, 1748, to my exceeding great joy, came to my house, healthy and
172 The facts about the birth and parentage of the Rev. John Philip Leydich were discovered by Mr. Dotterer, see his various articles in his Historical Notes, pp. 2, 50, 59 f.
173 Life of Rev. Schlatter, p. 182.
195
John Philip Leydich
happy, John Philip Leydich, with his wife and two chil- dren." Immediately after his arrival Leydich became pastor at Falkner Swamp and Providence. This incident is touchingly described by Mr. Boehm in his last letter, written on December 2, 1748,174 to the Classis of Am- sterdam :
Shortly afterwards came my dear and kind brother, the Rev. John Philip Leydich, who was found to be suitable to take my place. At the Coetus of this year Do. Leydich willingly accepted his call to Falkner Swamp and Providence, as Do. Hochreutner to Lancaster and Do. Bartholomie to Tulpehocken. Coetus com- missioned me to install Do. Leydich and Do. Bartholomie in their charges, which commission was carried out on October 16th at Falkner Swamp and on October 23rd at Tulpehocken.
Johan Philipp
Leydich was pastor at Falkner Swamp from 1748 to 1765 ; at Vincent, Chester County, from 1753 to 1765; at Coventry, now Brownback's, in Chester County, from 1769 to 1784 ; at Upper Milford and Salzburg, in Lehigh County, from 1766 to 1771, and at Pottstown from 1770 to 1784.
During the first twenty years of his ministry, Mr. Ley- dich took a prominent part in the work of the Coetus. He preached the opening sermon of the second Coetus, September 28, 1748, but a few weeks after his arrival. The same is true of the third Coetus, which was opened September 27, 1749, at Lancaster, "with a well arranged
174 Classical Archives, Pennsylvania Portfolio, No. 33. See Life and Letters of Boehm, p. 449 f.
196
History of the Goshenhoppen Charge
and edifying sermon by Do. Leydich." He was the presi- dent of Coetus in 1757 and 1760, and acted as its secre- tary in 1753, 1756 and 1768. In 1753 his salary is given as 40 pounds. After the year 1768 he retired to the back- ground. That may have been due to his failing health, for in 1757, 1771, 1772 and 1776 he is reported as absent because of sickness or infirmity of old age.175
On October 16, 1749, Mr. Leydich purchased one hun- dred and five acres of land in Frederick township, on the banks of the Swamp Creek. This became the family homestead.176
He died January 14, 1784, leaving three sons and four daughters. He was buried on Leydig's graveyard, a pri- vate burial place, in part located on land originally pur- chased by him. The inscription on his tombstone reads in an English translation :
John Philip Leydich Reformed Minister was born 1715 the 28th of April Died January 14, 1784 Aged 69 Years 2 Tim. 2: 3.
How long Leydich supplied Goshenhoppen cannot be made out with entire certainty, but probably a year, for at the Coetus meeting of May 5 to 6, 1763, Goshenhoppen is referred to as vacant.
On May 19, 1763, the Commissioners of the Classis of Amsterdam wrote as follows to the Coetus of Penn- sylvania :
175 For other sketches of Mr. Leydich's life see Harbaugh, Fathers of Reformed Church, Vol. II, pp. 24-28; Good, History, pp. 493-496.
176 Dotterer, Historical Notes, p. 60.
197
Philip Jacob Michael
Inasmuch as the congregations of Old and New Goshenhoppen as well as some others desire a minister, we have now a good oppor- tunity to send them a well tried teacher, who has done camp serv- ice with much praise in a Swiss regiment in the service of our country. This gentleman, who has a wife and several children, cannot decide to come over to you unless the congregations which desire his services shall have indicated how much they will be able to raise for his yearly salary and how much they are willing to send over for the traveling expenses of himself and his family; to which we expect a speedy answer.
When Coetus informed the Fathers that the sending of traveling expenses to Holland was impossible, the expected minister from Holland did not materialize.
2. THE MINISTRY OF PHILIP JACOB MICHAEL, 1763-1764 ( ?).
In the opening statement of the New Goshenhoppen record, quoted above, Mr. Michael is placed after Mr. Leydich as the next pastor at Goshenhoppen. This is indirectly confirmed by the minutes of the Coetus of May 2 to 3, 1764, which state :
Regarding Goshenhoppen, we mention that it is provisionally supplied with preaching by another minister, until it shall be in a better condition to call a regular pastor.
The fact that the name of the minister is not given is rather surprising. Was it because Coetus was employing one who was not one of its members and did not want the Fathers in Holland to know the fact? This question sug- gests itself naturally and an affirmative answer becomes highly probable, because recently another letter has come to light, in which the same state of affairs is said to have prevailed in another congregation. In January, 1773, Simon Dreisbach, a member of the Indian Creek congre-
198
History of the Goshenhoppen Charge
gation (now Stone Church in Northampton County) wrote to Rev. John Henry Helffrich about his congrega- tion as follows:
A minister was promised us, as soon as one should come in [from Holland]. Meanwhile Rev. Mr. Leydich and Rev. Michael were to supply us until a minister should come in. Each of these con- gregations gave twelve pounds to the said ministers to come to us on a week day, every three weeks, for one year, which was done and our congregation got its share, until several ministers came in [Stapel in 1761 and Weyberg in 1762].177
In view of these facts it is highly probable that the un- named supply of Goshenhoppen in the Coetus minutes of 1764 was Philip Jacob Michael. It was at this same meeting of Coetus that he asked for admission. Although he was an independent Reformed minister, yet he did a useful work, that is well worthy of recognition.
When Michael appeared before the Coetus in 1764, he is said to have been 48 years of age, hence he was born in 1716. Rev. Wm. A. Helffrich states in his "History of Some Churches of Lehigh and Berks Counties," "that he was a weaver by trade."178
A Jacob Michael, and the only person of that name before 1744, qualified in Philadelphia on October 14, 1731, having arrived with the ship Snow Louther, Joseph Fisher, master. We are probably justified in identifying this Jacob Michael with the Reformed minister, Philip Jacob Michael. Inasmuch as in Germany the second
177 This letter was first quoted by Ben. Trexler in his Skizzen aus dem Lecha = Thale, Allentown, 1886, p. 107. More recently it was again brought to light by Rev. John B. Stoudt of Northampton, Pa., and published by him in the Cement Nequs of Siegfried, Pa., January 30-February 13, 1914; also in the Reformed Church Review, April, 1914, pp. 206-218.
178 Wm. A. Helffrich, Geschichte verschiedener Gemeinden in Lecha und Berks Counties, etc., Allentown, 1891, pp. 8, 79.
199
Churches of Michael
Christian name serves as call name, the first is usually omitted.
Mr. Michael first appears as minister in the year 1744. His first field was Heidelberg, Lehigh County. Rev. Wm. A. Hellfrich says of him in his "History ":179
"In the year 1744 a log church was built [at Heidel- berg] and dedicated by Philip J. Michael." On March 28, 1745, he signed a contract drawn up by the Reformed and Lutheran congregations, worshipping in that church.
In 1750 we find him present at the dedication of Ziegel church in Lehigh County. On July 6, 1750, he signed a contract drawn by the Reformed and Lutheran members of that church. At the dedication of the church, July 29, 1750, Michael preached the first sermon and was the first pastor of the congregation.
In the same year, 1750, the first church building of Jacobs church, in Jacksonville, Lynn township, was erected. Here again Michael officiated at the dedication of the church and was elected as the first pastor of the congre- gation.180
Two years later we meet him at Longswamp, in Berks County. Of this Jacob Weimer, the schoolmaster of the congregation, reports in the old church record :
After this work [the building of the church] had been com- pleted to the honor of God and for their own salvation, they ac- cepted the honored Mr. Frederick Casimir Miller for the purpose of dedicating this church and accepted him as their preacher, who served them for some time. But when he left them, they looked for another shepherd and accepted the honored Mr. Philip Jacob Michael as their minister. During his and the preceding pastor's ministry, Fridrich Hölwig has acted as cantor and precentor until the present time when this was written.
179 L. c., p. 32.
180 L. c., p. 52.
200
History of the Goshenhoppen Charge
The ministry of Michael at Longswamp extended prob- ably from 1752-1753.
In 1753 Michael appears in Reading, where he bap- tized a number of Reformed children. Curiously enough the baptisms are entered into the Lutheran record, possibly because the parents became later members of the Lutheran church. The last baptism of Michael at Reading took place on November 10, 1754.181
In 1761 Michael dedicated the first church of the Ebe- nezer congregation, also called "Organ Church," in Lynn township, Lehigh County, and acted as its pastor from 1760 to 1770.
In 1761 Michael began his ministry also in the Weisen- berg congregation, in Weisenberg township, Lehigh County. He served that congregation until the middle of the seventies, or about 1775.182
During the same time, from about 1759 till 1770, he was pastor at Maxatawny, Berks County, now De Long's Church, at Bowers. In October, 1771, the minutes of Coetus report Maxatawny, "formerly served by Do. Michael," as vacant for some time and appealing to Coetus for a minister.
In 1764 Mr. Michael appeared before Coetus. The minutes state :
Philip Jacob Michael appeared with an earnest petition that he might be admitted as a member of Coetus. His credentials, from far and near show that, according to the rules of our Reformed Church, he has been faithful in doctrine, life and conduct for four-
181 Daniel Miller, History of the Reformed Church in Reading, Pa., Reading, 1905, p. 12. A sketch of Michael's life is given there by the writer, pp. 13-15.
182 For Michael's work in these two churches see Helffrich's Geschichte, PP. 47, 39-41.
201
Michael before Coetus
teen years [1750-1764] and constantly served the same congrega- tions in Maxatawny and therefore, he does not deserve the name of an adventurer or Moravian. He showed that twelve years ago [1752] Mr. Schlatter would not recognize or admit him because of unfounded reasons. Wherefore he would not apply again, although he labored continually in harmony with us.183 We can state this all the more readily, because all his congregations are well known to us and we know how he has unweariedly aimed for this end, and even now, in he 48th year of his age, he supplies with the greatest zeal twelve congregations. This earnest request and petition we could not refuse. But since he has not been or- dained, according to the order of our church, we herewith request permission, and proper authority from the Reverend Synods to ordain him. And as several of our number have heard him preach, and in his ministrations all is clearly in accordance with the Re- formed church-order in doctrine and life, we expect that our re- quest will not be in vain, so that we may thus be strengthened, by bringing under our control the congregations which he is serving, and comply with his reasonable request. We would not put our pen to this were we not convinced that it would be of advantage to us, and of greater profit to his congregations. We expect at the earliest opportunity a favorable reply from the Reverend Synods.
In spite of this earnest plea the Holland Fathers re- fused to consent to his ordination in Pennsylvania, but demanded that he should come to Holland. That was of course impossible. Hence he did not press his request. The minutes of 1765 state :
We shall leave Mr. Michael to himself, and say nothing further about him, because the Reverend Fathers seem much disinclined to grant our request, and he being aged does not press his case, and his congregations are satisfied with him without ordination.
183 This statement supports our contention, p. 198, that Coetus appointed Michael to supply Goshenhoppen in 1764.
202
History of the Goshenhoppen Charge
In 1769 Michael founded the Lowhill congregation, in Lehigh County. On September 3, 1769, the first church was dedicated by him and he served as pastor of this con- gregation from 1769 to 1772.184
In the same year he also founded Michael's Church (named after him) in Upper Berne township, Berks County.
When the War of the Revolution broke out Michael resigned his churches. On May 17, 1777, he was ap- pointed as chaplain of the first battalion of the Berks County militia.185
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.