USA > Pennsylvania > Historical notes relating to the Pennsylvania Reformed Church, V. I > Part 2
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
2.
One of Hans Grob's daughters died; also ber infam child. Hans Detweiler
Hans Gut, chief of the watch
5
Esch Affholteren 66
Caspar Meyer
Heinrich and Jacob Gaßmann
Jacob Gletli
Basserstorff 66
Jacob Issler
Mottmenstetten
Heinrich Gassmann
Psessikon
widow
Basserstorff
Hans and Jacob Schneid Hans Enderli
The names of those who were registered to sait for Pennsylvania, according to Weber's account, were these:
From.
Name of head of family.
Number.
Appenzell
Jacob Mettler
Bachss
Jacob Bucher, shoemaker, self and family
Bassersterff
Heinrich Brunner
Heinrich Duebendorffer
Jacob Duebendorffer
Kilian Diebendorffer
1
· Bertschicken Buchss
Jacob Schmid
Jacob Murer
66
Heinrich Huber
66
Conrad Mever
Diebendorff
Jacob Dentzler
Esch
Rudolf Egg
Flunteren
Balthassar Bossart
Jacob Schellenberg and his servant
Greiffensee
Johannes Heid
] 1 -----
66
Heinrich Ing, wheelwright
Rudolf Walder
Margreth Bader, whose brother remained at Namur Hans Stiorli
Barber Brummer
1 5
Heinrich Engeler
Heinrich Gallman
186
HISTORICAL NOTES.
From.
Name of head of family.
Number.
Hirslanden
Caspar Noctzli and his children
Rudolf Hotz
Kloten
Verena Korn
Langenhuet
Hans Ott
1
Lnflingen
Abraham Weidmann, smith
Mennidorff
Hans Ulrich Ammann
Mnelliberg
Jacob Pussart
Opilikon
Barbara Eberhardt
Riespach
Heinrich Schreiber, blatmacher
Ruemlang
Rudolf Weidmann, tailor
Steinmur-aber-boy-Stein Hans Meyer
Snltzbach
Jacob Frey
Wallissellen
Heinrich Merck
Martin Schellenberg
Ludwig Lienhardt
Jacob Wnest
Hans Rudolf Aberli
66
Conrad Keller
16
Jacob Nieff .
Conrad Naff
66
Jacob Na.ff
Wangen
Caspar Guntz
1
Wondli
Hans Ulrich Arner
Winckel
Jacob Meyer
Emnikon Zurich
Heinrich Scheuchzer
1
Hans Mueller
-4
Jacob Mneller and brother
AAbraham Wackerli
4
Hans Kuebler
The ship Mercury brought those of the emigrants who were sent to Pennsylvania. They qualified at Philadelphia May 29, 1735. The names of the passengers on this ship-among them several that were probably not members of Getschy's band-appear in the archives pub- lished by the State of Pennsylvania. Rev. Moritz Gutschy's name does not appear ou the list; but he is said to have been in the company. Dr. Good, in his History of the Reformed Church in the United States (page 181), states that Gertschy did arrive in this ship, but sick, and that he died a day or two after landing.
.It was a merciful Providence-I cannot regard it otherwise-that look away Goetschy at this juncture, and delivered the infant Reforma Church of Pennsylvania from the sinister influences which a mon of his character would have brought to bear upon it.
Skippack Church Officers.
The officers of Rev. John Philip Behur's congregation, on the 27th of October, 1734, were:
Johan Ulric Stephen, elder. Jacob Arent, senior elder. Philip Heinrich Köller, older. Christian Leeman, elder. Johannes Dintenmeyer, deacon. Adam Kind, deacon.
1
3 G 1 4
Jacob Bortschinger
187
HISTORICAL NOTES.
History of the Reiff Case.
BY PROF. W.M. J. HINKE.
IV. THE EFFORTS OF THE AUTHORITIES IN HOLLAND.
We have seen that all the efforts of the Reformed people in Pennsyl- vania to settle the Reiff Case proved fruitless, mainly owing to the lack of documentary evidence. The only tangible result was the displacement of Rev. Rieger from the pastorate at Philadelphia and the consequent .elec- tion of Rev. Boehm.
But when the zeal of the people in this country was flagging in the Reiff Case, the authorities in Holland were stirred up to renewed activity by the letters which they received from Pennsylvania. The Classis of Amsterdam was the first to push the case vigorously.
1. Efforts of the Classis of Amsterdam, 1734-1739.
In the year 1734 a large number of letters were sent from Pennsyl- vania to the Classis. Rieger and Diemer, as well as Pelin and his con- sistories, wrote stirring appeals to Holland. Especially the letter of Rieger and Diemer, dated February 23, 1734, caused important resol- tions and actions. It was laid before Classis on June 7, 1734, and on July 19, resolutions were passed regarding it. In one of Dem Classis gave its opinion to the effect "that Mr. Reif ought to be compelled by all pos- sible means to render an account of the moneys already sent over." The suggestion "to send a special order to Rev. Weiss to purge himself by an oath" seems to have been followed, for in obedience to this command "Weiss affirmed solemnly under oath, on November 3, 1735, that the money was still in the hands of Reiff." On September 8, 1786, another letter of Weiss is reported in the Classical minutes, stating that "his Reverence had already brought the matter of the collected money before the Court and was prosecuting Reiff. In answer to this letter of Weiss, the Classis wrote to him as follows, on October 1, 1736:
"We take the liberty of assuring you that there is a determination among us that not only shall the Christian Synod not rest until it is made plain where the love gifts collected in Holland have gone to, but also that they have been properly accounted for and expended ad pias usus (for benevolent objects ) for which they were given. Else the foun- tain of benevolence will run dry, as long as this satisfaction is pot given, as well as if no explanation be given on your part which shall be satisfied tory. You can therefore easily see that if your name is to be free from blame and if you are not to be the cause that to all those churches the lavish hand shall over remain closed, the above mentioned funds, still diverted from their proper design, must be brought to light. Therefore we advise you, in case Reiff cannot be compelled to render a full account, that the 2000 guilders be unreservedly produced, to which you also seem to be inclined. This surely would have a very good effect in reference to
HISTORICAL NOTES.
"Schipbach, May 8. 1738.
"Account, made with J. Reiff, concerning the collected money, which he received in my presence in Holland at Rotterdam, Harlem and Am- sterdam, from the respective persons, of which he made the following disposition, namely:
"Receipts, according to the collection book added together in smn total A. 2101. "Expenditures, being necessary expenses:
"]. "For voyage from Philadelphia to London without the provisions taken along
712. For provisions in London during about one month, with the duty for my- 18 5 self and Jacob Reiff .
. 5 97 sch. nid. "3. For passage from London to Rotterdam for each 13 schi. i chini (?) for the bed and 3 sch. sterling for board . . I & Misch. "4. Expenses for hali a year's board in Holland and necessary journeys, 70 Dutch guilders . . 700 11. "5. At Rotterdam, shortly before my return to London, Jacob Reiff gave De 250 Dutch guilders. Of these I paid the passage from Rotterdam to London, B &h., one chini (?) for the bed 6 sch. for the board. The passage from London to Mars- land, 8 pounds, without the provisions taken along. The journey from Marylun to Philadelphia by sea and land 3 $ 12 sch. 1 d. Board in London lo >ch.
"In addition for my labor and trouble I ask 550 for the year
"N. B. Jac. Reiff declares to have paid to me for clothes and books 110 sl. 14 stivers.
"When pounds and schillings are referred to, sterling money is meant."
With regard to this account Bochum adds in the above quoted letter:
"This account is a proof of subtle treachery by which Weiss, besides the unnecessary extravagance in spending the money. demands fifty pounds sterling for his trouble and work, nor should the postscript be overlooked.
"Under the first head the amount of provisions is not mentioned. nor how much Reiff asks for his time and trouble, and it seems this has been kept back purposely, in order to lay claim to the rest of the money that might be left : fter the other expenses are paid."
Boehm was right in calling attention to the extravagance shown by the account, for Weiss and Reiff claimed to have spent in all about five hundred dollars, besides the doubtful forty-four dollars mentioned in the postscript. If the 150, or 8242, which Weiss claimed, had been allowed. the whole bill would have amounted to $786, or but 854 less than all the collected money amounted to. Fortunately the attempt to settle the case by such wholesale fraud did not succeed, and Weiss was compelled to re- turn to Albany without having accomplished his object. Ho therefore wrote to the Classis, offering to pay back the money with his own salary. A few years before, the Classical Commissioners had urged him to do this. but now the members of the committee had changed and the new mem- bers showed no longer the determination of the former committee, and hence they allowed the matter to drop by writing in January, 1789;
"We indeed commend your offer to reimburse the collected money by means of a reduction of your salary. But, dear brother, we under- stand that this would be troublesome to you and inconvenient. We kam also that the older Reiff is in a condition to pay and we are informal that if the Lord Bishop of London were approached on the subject, his Right
190
HISTORICAL NOTES.
Reverence would immediately take steps to oblige Reiff to make a settle- ment." There is no evidence that this appeal was ever taken, and hence- forth Classis made no other active efforts to settle the case. But when the Classis was losing interest, the case was taken up with new energy by another body, the Synod of South Holland, through their Synodical deputies.
2. The Efforts of the Synodical Deputies. 1731-1744.
When the Classis of Amsterdam abandoned its efforts, in 1739 a new and most important factor appeared upon the scene, the Deputies of the Synods of North and South Holland. It must however not be supposed that the efforts of the Deputies in the year 1739 were the first attempt which they made to settie the case. They were in reality the climax of a long series of operations extending through many years. It will therefore be necessary, in order to put the efforts of 1739 into their proper historical setting, to review briefly the previous operations of the Deputies, leading up to the events of the year 1739.
After the departure of Weiss from Holland in the spring of 1731. the Deputies waited patiently about half a year for news from Pennsylvania. Meanwhile they learned, through a London merchant, the name of a ver- tain Arent Hassert, who was said to be a member of the Reformed con- gregation at Philadelphia. Hence Deputy Jacob van Ostade was asked to write to him and three other parties, Rev. Weiss and his consistory, Rev. Bohin, and the Dutch ministers at New York. These four letters, writ- ten on December 1, 1731, were the first communications addressed by the Synods to the Reformed Church in Pennsylvania.
Writing to Rev. Weiss and his consistory, Do. van Ostade informes them that "the Christian Synods have resolved to send no more donations to Pennsylvania, until Do. Weiss and the Rev. Consistory of Philadelphia shall have sent hither not only a report that the money already given was actually received, but also a proper specification for what it was spent."
Half a year passed by, but no answer to their letters came. Then Jacob van Ostade wrote a second letter on July 2, 1732. Meanwhile four letters arrived, written by Diemer and Rieger in October, 1731, before the Deputies had sent off their own letters. Their principal contents well renewed complaints against Rev. Behin, which were ignored, but what astonished the Deputies most was that they "had learned from older Ryff, that there must be in Pennsylvania as many as 30,000 Reformed communicants. But in these letters the said Diemer writes that there are not 3000. That makes a tremendously great difference."
An extract from the minutes of the South Holland Synod, held at Leyden on July 7-17, 1733, continues the history: "Having received no answer to all their former letters to Philadelphia and New York, the Rev.
*The chirography shows it was Rieger. Having no signature. it was hand in decide. The Deputies judged by the signature of one of the accompanying letter.
191
HISTORICAL NOTES.
Deputies had learned that the son of Arent Hassert was living at Haarlem and that the same had commercial relations with his father, who lives at Philadelphia. Thereupon the Rev. Deputies had, on January 11, 1733. once more written a long letter for information to Philadelphia, which had been sent to Philadelphia by the aforesaid Hassert, Jr. The latter also had sent to the Deputies a communication in writing concerning Pennsylvania* but therein was but little light on ecclesiastical matters and still less [none] concerning the condition of the Palatine churches there."
At last, after waiting a year and a half, three letters from Pennsyl- vania were laid before the Synod of South Holland, held at Leyden, on July 7-17, 1733. The first, dated March 6, 1733, was from Arent Hassert, the Philadelphia merchant, from which the Deputies learned that he was not Reformed, but a Mennonite. The second was from Con- rad Tempehnann, and the last from Rev. Rieger and Dr. John Diemer, dated March 4, 1733. This letter explained the long delay. It had taken them so long to get accurate information on all questions proposed by the Deputies. It also gave the Deputies the first intimation that the money was still in the hands of Reiff, the not only denied to have re- ceived 2000 fl., but was even unwilling to surrender the 750 11. which he acknowledged to have in his possession. Having received this letter. which conveyed to them such startling information, the Deputies were ordered at their next meeting to "endeavor to obtain knowledge of the funds which were received and collected by Byff." But on November 24, 1788, they are compelled to report that "they had not been able to find anything anywhere, which would clearly reveal how much money was placed in the hands of the Eller Ryf."
In answering the letter of Rev. Rieger, on December 28. 1735, Deputy Velingius gave vigorous expression to his feelings. He wrote: "It cannot seem strange to you that we are surprized and astounded with the utmost indignation over the faithless dealings of Jacob Reiff; and we attribute your late answer to our letters to the delay and act of the said Reiff; ako the reason why ours is dispatched later than we desired, is that we gladly wished to comply with your request to send over the itemized account of the moneys handed over to the said Reiff among us, confirmed by authen- tic proofs. However, hitherto without success and thus far it seems to us impossible to learn this accurately. It seems that Do. Weiss, who ae- companied him in the journey to Holland. can best explain matters, and we doubt not that you have already written to this gentleman about it."
The efforts to discover the exact amount handed over to Reiff were continued, but without any results whatever
In March, 17:5, the Deputies heard that Rey. Catechins, from Zurich, had arrived in Rotterdam with a colony of Swiss emigrants. But
*This corrects our statement on p. 135 of the Historical Notes, where we ought to have said the report was made by the son of the Philadelphia merchant.
192
HISTORICAL NOTES.
when they first heard of him, he had already left Holland, and they re- gretted exceedingly not having had the opportunity of coming in contact with him.
No news was received from Pennsylvania till October 31, 1735, when the Deputies had an important conference with Rev. Wilhelmnius at Rot- terdam. He handed them a letter sent to him from the Philadelphia congregation, dated February 23, 17:4, and "an extract drawn up by Rev. Weiss, from which it appears what moneys were formerly received by the Elder Reiff."
Besides Rev. Wilhelmnius gave them an extended and interesting ale- count of the Pennsylvania churches and furthermore informed them that he had given Gotsehius full instructions to inquire into the condition of the Church in Pennsylvania. He also promised to notify the Deputies as soon as he would receive an answer from Gotschius.
But instead of hearing from Goetschius the deputies received on May 28, 1786, a letter and report from Rev. Behm and his consistories. It was the first letter he addressed to the Synodical Deputies, and although it had been written on October 28, 1734, it reached its destination only after a delay of about a year and a half. When the report had been translated and was laid before the Deputies, on June 11. 1736, it was found to be so voluminous that there was not sufficient time to give it the care- ful consideration it deserved. Moreover the minds of the Deputies had been so poisoned against Bohm that they had no confidence in him, and hence all his lengthy and valuable reports were laid aside without careful and prayerful consideration. This was the most serious mistake which the Deputies made in our early history and most seriously did they and the churches in Pennsylvania suffer for it.
At the same meeting the announcement was made, more than a year after the event, that no news could be expected from fietschius, as he had died on his arrival at Philadelphia. Their hopes having thus comme to nought, the Deputies wer: compelled to look elsewhere for more infor- mation and a proper medium of communication with the churches of Pennsylvania. About this time Rev. Wilhelmius called their attention to a young student "who at the request of certain merchants of New Nether- land was qualifying himself to go to Pennsylvania." It was Peter Henry Dorsius. When their attention was first called to him, on November !. 1735, he was studying at Groningen. In 1736 he went to Lerden and when he had finished his studies, he presented himself before the Deputies on June 11, 1737, offering to supply them with the necessary information, which they gladly accepted, urging him "to transmit a circumstantial and correct report at the earliest opportunity. "
Following the suggestion of the South Holland Synod of 1787, the Deputies prepared a set of questions which they transmitted to Porsius on June 9, 1788, asking him to answer them as speedily as possible. The
193
HISTORICAL NOTES.
13th and last question read: "Finally (you are asked ) accurately to ascer- tain what has become of the collected moneys and the collection book."
At the same meeting the Deputies received the first letter from Dor- sius, dated March 1, 1738, which gave them additional information about the condition of the Reformed people in Pennsylvania. With this new information the Deputies felt warranted in adopting a new course of action. which promised to lead to the long desired solution of this difficult prob- lem. It was an appeal to the governor of Pennsylvania. After having obtained the list of the collected money from Rey. Wilhelmius, Deputy Præbsting drew up an appeal to the governor and sent it to Professor Gronovius, of Leyden, a famous Dutch naturalist, and personal friend of James Logan, then lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania, to be translated into English, and forwarded by him to the governor. (These letters were published by Rev. Jos. H. Dubbs, D. D., in the Reformed Quarterly Review of 1893, pp. 66-69. )
A few days afterwards another copy of this appeal was sent to Dr. John Diemer, who, together with Rev. Dorsius, was given a power of attorney to prosecute Reiff. Having accomplished this, they looked con- fidently into the future, hoping that now at last they were nearing the end of this troublesome transaction. But all their hopes were again disappointed.
At first indeed the news from Pennsylvania was more cheerful than usual. On June 7, 1740, a letter of Logan was laid before the Deputies. dated December 13, 1739, which stated "that on account of his illness he had resigned all his offices and dignities, but yet he hoped to have occa- sion and would not decline to serve Mr. Gronovius and particularly the Reverend Synod; his Excellency had been acquainted with Weiss before his departure from the Province, but the other was unknown to hin .; however he would not neglect to investigate it." But soon the hopeful- ness of the news changed. On March 7, 17441, the Deputies resolve to keep fl. 110 as ready cash to pay "the cost of the lawsuit, which will be conducted in the name of this Synod in Pennsylvania, to force the falsely called elder Reiff, as a wretched thief, to restore the 2132 H., collected by him in Holland for which Rev. Mr. Dorsius indeed promises very little hope of success. Rev. Mr. Dorsius and Diemer had handed in a petition about this to the Load Governor, but had received no reply as yet on March 4, 1740."
On November 18, 1742, Diemer wrote to the Deputies as follows: "I received in the year 1741 [1740?] a letter, which the Rev. Mr. Ernest Probsting, Deputy of the Reverend Synod, wrote at Henaden. under date May 3, 1739, and received besides in the aforesaid year in December, a copy of a special letter to the governor of Pennsylvania under date April 15, 1739, from The Hague, in which was given authority to the Rev. Mr. Porsius and myself, to prosecute the still pending suit
194
HISTORICAL NOTES.
against Jacob Reiff, of Schipack, in Pennsylvania, in which an appeal was was made by the Reverend Deputies to the Governor. Immediately on the receipt of the letter aforesaid, I was informed, his Excellency the Governor promised to assist us, but the circumstances of the war between the English and Spanish crowns [1789-1742] have until now prevented such, on account of many special engagements.
"We wished that the matter be brought so far that the goods of the rascal Jacob Reiff be placed in security, until the case be finished. With- erto I have paid this suit out of my own money without the least assis- tance from anybody, but this is too difficult for me to continue, inasmuch as I have already spent 250 fl."
The appointment of Diemer to prosecute Reiff was a most unfortunate selection. Ile was an utterly unreliable man, and we think that Buchm was perfectly right in his judgment when he wrote to Holland: "He is as much or more to blame than Reiff for the deception and loss incurred." It is doubtful whether he ever spent a penny in the case.
New interest was awakened in the Reiff case, when Dor-ins himself appeared in Holland and presented himself before the Deputies in Sep- tember, 1743. He was closely questioned about the conditions in Penn- sylvania. He reported that "touching the power of attorney given to him and Dr. Diemer to prosecute Reiff, he had more than once urged Diemer to proceed therewith, but he did not seem to be in a great hurry about it, so that as far as he, Mr. Dorsius, knew, nothing, or at least nothing of any importance, had as yet been accomplished. However, on his jour- ney hither, passing through Philadelphia, he had spoken with said Dr. Diemer, who told him that he had spent in costs about twenty pounds" ($52), a discrepancy of nearly $50 between his letter and his statement to Dorsius !
The appeal to the governor of Pennsylvania, which was expected to end the matter at once, had signally failed because the Deputies had failed to appoint the right man as their representative. The elders of Bochum wrote truly: "If this matter had been entrusted exclusively to our minister, we believe it would be in a different condition."
The efforts of the Deputies came to an end when on March 10. 1744. they received the followed letter from Logan, dated September 17, 1713: "I am much concerned and ashamed about the business relating to the Reverend Synod, for which your friend, Robert Peters, to whom I had referred the business, must in no sense be blamed. I am informed that the debtor is a rogue (guit). Nevertheless he cannot be touched by the Common Court, according to custom, but this must be done by a Higher Court, called the Court of Equity. By certain circumstances the affair here have been badly managed during seven years, but we have hope that in a short time everything will be put into proper order and every one will be able to secure justice."
195
HISTORICAL NOTES.
The hopes of the governor and of the Deputies were not fulfilled, for Reiff was not disturbed in the possession and use of the collected money.
V. THE SETTLEMENT OF THE REIFF CASE THROUGH REV. MICHAEL SCHLATTER, 1746-1755.
We now come to the last stage of the Reiff Case, its settlement through Schlatter. That which many minds had been unable to accomplish for many years, he succeeded in doing within a few months. With remark- able energy, noticeable in his whole activity, he pushed this case to a suc- cessful conclusion. His unpublished journal gives us all the details of this transaction and forms an eloquent, though unconscious, tribute to his taet and tenacity of purpose.
On September 8, 1746, Schlatter had the first conference with Reiff. who expressed his readiness to make a settlement and only asked for the presence of Rev. Weiss. Schlatter gave him twelve days' time to confer with Weiss and to appoint a day for another meeting. A few days later he received a reply from Reiff to come to his house with Rev. Weiss on September 21.
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.