I know that George Mertz, the 1732 immigrant, had a son Philip who ended up with George’s Heidelberg Township land and held onto it until 1791 when he gave it to his own son John George.

In The History of the Counties of Lehigh and Carbon, Chapter XXIV covers Heidelberg Township and has these citations:

1. Philip Mertz was named as a contributor to the 1756 building of the Heidelberg Church.
2. Philip Mertz was named on the 1781 tax list.

I have seen several versions of the records of the Heidelberg Church, which served both the Lutheran and Reformed faiths, and found these citations:

1. Philip and wife Hannes baptized a son Daniel born 28 Sep 1773 [Reformed].
2. Philip (and ?) baptized a child (whose name I didn’t record) born 1 Sep 1778. [Reformed].
3. In 1779, Philip and Margaret Mertz were sponsors at the baptism of Anna Margaretha Ebert, daughter of Johannes and Maria Susanna Ebert. Maria Susanna was Philip’s sister. [Lutheran].
4. Mr. and Mrs. Philip Mertz baptized daughter Anna Margaretha 28 Jun 1784 [Lutheran].
5. In 1806, Philip and Margaretha Mertz sponsored the baptism of Philip, son of Heinrich and Catharina Hartman.

Clearly, Philip was the son of George known from the 1797 property deed and is designated G1.

A man named Johann Philip Mertz arrived America on the ship Edinburgh 15 Sep 1749. According to Don Yoder’s Rhineland Immigrants, a Philipp Mertz, locksmith from Nierstein paid the tithe to emigrate 29 Apr 1749. For a long time, I thought both these citations might pertain to the same man and in fact, might well be the man of that name who just “popped up” in Heidelberg Township in 1756. I no longer think that is the case, though I don’t know what happened to Philip the 1749 immigrant.

Now it could be argued that George’s son, Philip, stayed behind in Germany and then came to America later, in 1749. But that seems highly unlikely. I believe George left for America as a young man and brought all his children — all of whom would have been quite young — with him.

I suspect that Philip was born in America not long after his parents arrived in 1732. As he contributed to the church building fund, in 1756, I have guessed at a birth year of about 1735.

Turning to Census, the first thing to note is that there were no Mertz heads of household in Heidelberg in the 1790 Census, though Philip was there in 1800 and 1810 and then “replaced” by Margret, his widow I believe, in 1820. (And other, related I think, Mertzes also were listed in 1800-1820). I think the mystery of why there were no Mertzes in 1790 is explained by spelling. I think Philip was in Heidelberg in the 1790 Census listed as Philip March and there was a George March too in the same place in that year. Father and son.

The name Mertz seems to have been derived from the name of the third month of the year — in German März or Merz — and so I have very occasionally seen where some Census taker, being too smart by half, writes down March as some person’s name, someone otherwise known as Mertz.

Philip was listed in the 1800 Census, he and his wife were both over the age of 45. The same, of course, in 1810. And then Philip died sometime before 1820 and his widow Margaret, age 45+ was present in his place. I believe he was born in 1735, I suppose it could have been 1740 or even a little later but that means he gave to the church building fund as a teenager which doesn’t strike me as logical.

The oldest child he had that I know of was George born in 1761 and yet he also seems to have had a daughter Anna Margaretha in 1784, some 23 years later. And he appears to have lived well into his seventies if not to 80. This is why I wonder if Philip had a son Philip, not the John Philip who was born in 1797 and lived his adult life in Carbon County, but another older Philip, maybe born in the 1750’s or so and maybe it was that Philip whose wife was named Margaret while the older Philip was married to Hannes.

It’s possible but there is no real evidence for that scenario so, for now, I am assuming there was just one Philip in Heidelberg and he lived a long life.

Philip was the only son, I believe, of George, the 1732 immigrant. And Philip was, I believe the father of the next generation of Mertzes of Heidelberg Township and associated there with the Heidelberg Church. And then his sons, and their sons — I have come to believe — were the line of Mertzes who later appear in Carbon County (carved from northern Northampton in 1843) and Westmoreland County.

There are still a lot of links to firmly establish in this line and I may have a few relationships scrambled. I may have someone as the son of his grandfather, for example, missing a generation. Or I may have someone listed as the son of his uncle. But I strongly believe that I am on the right track by claiming all of these people are of the same overall family line.

He baptized a daughter Anna Margaretha but I don’t know what happened to her. And I believe I have identified a second daughter. There may have been others.

I note that when Heinrich and Catharina Hartman baptized son Wilhelm at the Heidelberg Church, Wilhelm Mertz stood as a sponsor and when they baptized a son Philip at the same church, Philip and Margaret Mertz stood as sponsors. I’ve analyzed thousands of baptisms by these German immigrant families and these two just speak loudly to me. I think Catharina was Philip’s daughter and William’s sister.

We know of two sons for sure for Philip — assuming there was but one Philip. There is the Daniel who Philip and Hannes baptized in 1773. I think I read somewhere about a Daniel Merdz (sic?) buried at Heidelberg Union who lived 1773-1802. I don’t think he was named in any Census or had children so he needs no further designation.

The 1797 land record says clearly that he had a son John George who I believe moved first to Carbon County and then to Westmoreland County and who said on his Revolutionary War Pension application that he had been born in 1761. George is designated G1a.

I think a third son may have been William. In the 1790 Census, Philip and George were listed in Heidelberg, then in 1800, Philip and William were. I believe he was the Wilhelm named as a baptism sponsor in 1791 at the Heidelberg Church — which I interpret to imply he was single at the time. William was age 26-45 in 1800 so even if only 26, he was too old to be George’s son. I believe he was another son of Philip’s. He is designated G1b.

In 1810, in Heidelberg, Philip is still there and “Widow” too — I think she is William’s widow — and now they are joined there by Dewalt who we know was born about 1776. If he is of this family, Philip is the only possible candidate to be his father. I think that is the case. Dewalt is designated G1c.

As a final check, let’s look at tick marks in Census and see if this attribution of these sons to Philip is consistent with them.

In 1790, there were four males present in Philip’s household, two over the age of 15 (Philip being one of those two) and two under 16. I believe Daniel (age 17) was the other older male and William (age 15?) and Dewalt (age 14) the two younger. (George was living on his own.)

In 1800, besides himself age 45+, there were two males age 16-26. William, by then, was on his own, so this could be Daniel and Dewalt.

Then Philip in 1810 and Margret, his widow, in 1820 had no younger males in the household. And that’s consistent with the fact that Dewalt has shown up on his own by 1810 and Daniel has died.

Philip was listed in church records once with wife Hannes and later with Margaret. Were they two wives or two names for the same wife? (Or two different Philips each with one wife?) I don’t know. If there was but one wife, she was likely born about the same time as Philip so clearly lived a long life. If she was his second wife, she might well have been younger.

There is an 1824 Lehigh County estate file for Margaretha Mertz of Heidelberg Township. Jacob Stehley was the administrator with Casper Peter and Henry Roth additional bondsmen. Some money (not specifically an inheritance) was paid to Dewald Mertz (perhaps for caring for his mother in her last years?) and debts to the estate were acknowledged for Charles and George Mertz. The Stehley name comes up again in connection with this family and may be one more link tying these people together. See the discussion of Dewalt’s daughters.

And I think this estate file also is one more demonstration of the connection of George and Charles and Dewalt. If my theories are correct, George and Dewalt were Margaret’s sons and Charles one of her grandsons.