Peter was likely baptized at Longswamp Reformed Church but his baptism went unrecorded. But we know his birth date from his tombstone And we can be sure he was Philip’s son because Philip named a son named Peter in his will and he was a neighbor of his parents in early Census listings. Jack Mertz, J L Floyd and Joseph Meiser state that he was Philip’s son.

He is designated P4a.

He was born while his parents were in Longswamp Township; they were active in the Reformed Church there in a period when the records of that church appear to be complete and yet Peter was not listed among the recorded baptisms. (There were other Mertzes too either not baptized or whose baptisms went unrecorded.) He moved to Freeburg from Berks County with his parents in about 1785 and there grew up to marry the girl next door -- literally. And there he lived the remainder of his life.

The 1830 Census has me puzzled. Two men named Peter Mertz lived in Washington Township. One was listed immediately above Philip Mertz, Peter’s son, and has (almost) the count of persons by age bracket I would expect. That listing has these people. A male 5-10 (George Peter), a male 10-15 (Peter P) and a male 50-60 (Peter age 56), a female 10-15, another 20-30 and one 50-60 (Catherine age 54). I do not know the ages of all of Peter’s daughters nor when they married, so the female headcount is reasonable but I’m not sure which daughters remained and which had moved out.

The other Peter I cannot identify. He is listed just below Henry and they are a few names removed from Peter and Philip. My hunch is that he is Henry’s son, but the list of Henry’s children as given by Meiser (Martz/Mertz) does not include any son named Peter. There are four persons in this household: males ages 20-30 and 50-60 and females ages 15-20 and 40-50. My thought is that the younger male is Peter, that perhaps his wife is just 19 and that the older people are his in-laws. This is all speculative, and I may well be wrong about who this man was -- but in any event, the other Peter is my ancestor.

This may be related to the mystery of Philip’s daughter Anna Mary who supposedly married Peter Mertz -- I do not know who that Peter Mertz was either.

Peter is on find-a-grave.

I know the names of his six (surviving) daughters from his will: Susanna, Polly, Elizabeth, Sarah, Catherine and Rebecca. He did not state the married names of his daughters. From what I know, his sons were listed in birth order and I would think the daughters were too (though Catherine may stand in contradiction of this theory).

Jack Mertz listed only three daughters. Meiser (Martz/Mertz) named six daughters -- though their names don’t exactly match the names as given in Peter’s will. The situation is even more confusing when I try to match up the names of husbands comparing Jack’s list to Meiser’s and then attempt to reconcile that with what I can observe from Census.

Here are the six daughters named in his will and what I know about them:

Catherine — I think she married William Heimbach.
Susanna — I know nothing more about her.
Polly — married Henry Brown 1 Oct 1826 and then later, I think, married Henry Heimbach.
Elizabeth — I think she married Peter Witmer.
Sarah — I think she married Benjamin Straub.

A close reading of Peter’s will tells us not only the names of his sons but something about them. We sense the order: Philip, Peter, John, George. He left Philip his half ownership of the farm in Derry Township where Philip lived. He left Peter his home plantation. He left John his tanyard and adjoining land. And he left (my ancestor) George $1000. Peter placed a value on the land he gave Philip and Peter and then required them to pay out the excess difference over $1000 back to the estate.

The fact that Peter's wife was named Catherine is known from her tombstone which is next to his, from his will and from her presence in the 1850 Census when she was living with a daughter. Jack Mertz referred to her as Catherine Moats. J L Floyd and Joseph Meiser both say she was Catherine Motz. The spelling doesn’t matter, all sources agree on her name.

The problem is I can’t absolutely prove that from any real document.

If that was her name, then I believe her father was George P Motz. The Motz and Mertz families were next-farm-over neighbors. George Motz said he had five daughters in his will but only three of them can be accounted for by name. From the wording in his will, we also know that the two he did not identify by name were married. Peter and Catherine’s marriage date is not known but can be approximated given their ages and ages of their children. George died in 1806, well after Peter and Catherine would have married.

Moreover, Catherine and Peter were buried immediately behind George’s son John Motz at St. Peter’s. Finally, George P Motz was George Peter and Catherine named a son George Peter Mertz, the name George theretofore not a Mertz name (in Hans Peter’s line).

So, all evidence is that she indeed was Catherine Motz, as suggested by those other early genealogists.

But that ’s where I was stuck, believing I knew who she was but without really strong evidence, until in 2020 I undertook a serious study of my autosomal DNA test results (I did the test in 2019).. And I now believe that DNA evidence strongly supports the idea that Peter’s wife was indeed Catherine Motz, daughter of George Peter Motz.

I discuss the findings in more detail under the heading “DNA Evidence” for Catherine and in the database record for her father, but briefly:

I have far too many DNA cousins who can only be my cousin because they descend, not from Catherine, but from George (one of his other children), or from a (presumed) brother of George or most strikingly, from a woman definitely named Motz who was, I believe, George’s aunt. Catherine was definitely a Motz.

Was George Peter her father? Well, DNA doesn’t prove that — but he is so obvious a candidate it must be the case. He was exactly in the right place at the right time. And while his (presumed) brothers lived for a period of time in the same area, they moved away before Catherine was “of age”. So any scenario for anyone else to be Catherine’s father except George Peter would be a real stretch.

And so the real issue now is who was George Peter’s father? We know the father of the other two persons who came to Penns Township at about the same time as George Peter and I can build a very strong logical case that the they were brothers but hard documented evidence of that fact is lacking.

Catherine is on find-a-grave.