Are the 1646 Hingham baptisms of Joseph Peck's children really for Samuel Packer/Packard's?

Question

Hobart's Journal (which records various vital records in 17th century Hingham, MA) contains an entry on July 19, 1646 that indicates that "Israell Hodsen & Elezebeth Samuell Hannah Israell Peck" were baptized on that day. See NEHGR 121:19. The genealogy of Joseph Peck in the History of Hingham (and the WT profile for Joseph Peck) read this to relate to the baptisms of Samuel, Hannah and Israel Peck and read the entry as not saying that Elezebeth part of the same family as Samuel, Hannah and Israel.

Packard genealogist, however, say that Peck was a recordation or transcription error and that the entry refers to the baptism of Samuel Packer/Packard's children by those names.

I think Packard genealogist are right for the following reasons:

1 - The more natural reading of the entry is that Elizabeth was also part of the "Pecks" who were getting baptized. Joseph Peck did not have a daughter named Elizabeth, while Samuel Packer/Packard did.

2 - Joseph Peck had already had children named Samuel and Israel baptized in Hingham in Feb 1638/9 (NEHGR 121:11) and March 1633/4 (NEHGR 121:16), respectively. And there is no record of him having a daughter named Hannah except for the baptism. So reading the record literally as Joseph Peck's children would require 2 of his sons to have died young, his having 2 more sons who he gave the same name, and having a daughter named Hannah for whom there is no further record. No such gymnastics are needed if the entry is for the Packer/Packard children.

3 - The clincher I think is that Israel Peck's 1718 will states that he was in his 76th year when he made the will, which would mean that he was born about 1633. If accurate, this means he MUST have been the Israel Peck who was baptized in March 1633/4 and thus the 1646 "Peck" baptism must have been a typo.

The upshot of this for Peck genealogists is: (1) Joseph Peck only had one Samuel and one Israel and they were born before Feb 1638/9 and March 1633/4, respectively, (2) there is no evidence that he had a daughter named Hannah, and (3) Joseph Peck has 8 children, not 11. For Packard genealogists, the upshot is that they can more firmly rely on that Hingham baptism as evidence for establishing the birth dates of his children Elizabeth, Samuel, Israel and Hannah.

Comments

Minerdecent.com or look at mathcs.clarku.edu this where I found Information.  Hope it helps

Wen

---

The exact text in Hubbard reads:

19 Sarah and Mary Smith baptized

Isaac Hodsden and Elizabeth baptized

Samuel, Hannah and Israel Peck baptized

Cleary three different family groupings. Based on having Isaac's surname before Elizabeth she was likely his wife and not a sister or a Peck/Packard. So Packard genealogists cannot use the date in Hubbard for Elizabeth.

---

Who are these "Packard genealogists" who are supposed to know so much? Where is their analysis that gives the name Packard to the children baptized in 1646?

There are multiple conflicting versions of the Hingham baptism records. For what it's worth, I read the version of the July 1646 record found at https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/76714013:2495 as:

19    Sarah and Mary Smith baptized

    Israel Houts dow & Elizabeth,

    Samuel, Hannah, Israel, Peck

    baptized - 19th

I don't see "Packard" in "Houts dow."

---

Ellen, does it looks something like Isreal "Hodsdon" who has a profile on wikitree with this date?  Leaving aside the olde quainte inconsistente spellinge of Hodsgon/Hodgson/etc.  Looks kind of like Hodsdon to me, the starting "H" very much looks like the "H" in Hannah below.

---

Mike, I read it as Israel rather than Isaac but I agree with Hodsdon (see my whiny comment about spelling below).

---

As I said, there are multiple conflicting versions of the Hingham baptism records. This 1646 baptism has been transcribed or interpreted in multiple different ways. I asked about the basis for the "Packard" interpretation. I don't propose to draw firm conclusions from any one transcription.

---

The NEHGR publication of Hobart's Journal (at https://www.americanancestors.org/DB202/i/11666/19/0) has that particular line as "Israell Hodsden & Elezabeth".

---

I'm late to this conversation, but having looked at the NEHGR article cited by Ellen Smith above, my thoughts are these. The NEHGR article gives an extremely thorough explanation for what we now have available for early Hingham baptisms. They originated in Rev. Peter Hobart's journal, now lost, but transcribed and continued by his son David Hobart. The latter does still exist and this is what was transcribed for the article. I know of no images of it online. There were later transcriptions, one of which, at least, is available with images and index (not well done) at ancestry.com. They don't differ a lot from the David Hobart manuscript, but the NEHGR translation is the most reliable - the closest we can get to a primary source for the records. Ancestry.com translations are, more often than not, a disaster in general. "Houts dow" is a shining example.

---

I just saw this related 2017 post about a "source page" by Jillaine Smith, which succinctly covers the subject:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Hobart's_Journal

Answer 1

New England Families, Genealogical and Memorial: A Record of the ..., Volume 3

edited by William Richard Cutter

1646 Hingham baptisms of Joseph Peck's children

Look at this book

Genesis of the White Family: A Connected Record of the White Family ...

1646 Hingham bap

Or

MinerDescent.com

This might help you to find what you  are looking for

Comments

Thanks for chiming in. Those sources have helped many of us get a general outline of our family history, but they are not the kinds of reliable sources we need to use for these early ancestors.

For more information on what we mean by "reliable sources," see Puritan Great Migration Project Reliable Sources and other pages in https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Reliable_Sources_for_Pre-1700_Profiles.

---

Im trying to learn as much as possible of how to do correct research so all comments and resonses are helpful.