There is a problem in early records with "servant" and "apprentice". The two can be interchangeable. James Redway although certainly referred to as "servant" was probably an apprentice. Bowen notes that, "He was probably released from his apprenticeship three years later, in 1640, and married in 1641" (Early Rehoboth, vol. 1, p. 126). The following is from an ancestry.com site that discusses the problem. "Man and Master "Mr. Steephen Hopkins is committed to ward for his contempt to the Court, and shall so remayne comitted until hee shall either receive his servant Dorothy Temple, or els provide for her elsewhere at his owne charge during the terme shee hath yet to serve him." (Stratton) One of the least known aspects of the Colony is the distinction made between classes. There were "freemen" and there were "free men" who were not "freemen," but the most pronounced difference was between free men and "unfree men;" that is, servants, apprentices, and slaves. Slavery was not introduced until the later period, but servants and apprentices were present from the beginning. Apparently there was little difference between a servant and an apprentice, and at times the records seem to treat them interchangeably, and yet at other times there was a distinction. It might not be inaccurate to say that all apprentices were servants, but not all servants were apprentices. The distinction seemed to be that apprentices tended to be young and were expected to be taught a trade or given some form of education." A hint that James Redway was an apprentice was that he served a merchant. A merchant would have sought a boy who had some education. To imply that my ancestor James Redway was an Irish waif is unfair and probably not historically accurate. I see where James Redway refers to himself as "yeoman" in his 1684 proved will. Well enough. However, apprentices were traditionally drawn from yeomans' sons. Not to be forgotten.