<< As the average life span was 45-50 years, I would doubt that ONLY men of considerable years would be appointed churchwardens. >> Average life *expectancy* (which I'm sure was intended) was greatly affected in the 17th century by very high infant and maternal mortality rates. But since a high fertility rate tended to balance the high infant mortality rate, an ample number of males survived infancy (and childhood, etc.) to reach the ages I have associated with the typical churchwarden. (It's nevertheless my impression that women who died of natural causes tended to outlive men, then as now.) << Also,there are typically 2 wardens, a senior warden and a junior warden. In the Church nowadays, the titles senior and junior warden are still utililized, but the distinction has nothing to do with age: it has to do with the traditional and canonical roles assigned to those titles. >> So far as I'm aware, the only distinction in the 17th century between the two churchwardens is that one was chosen by the "incumbent" (priest or vicar), and the other was chosen by the parishioners. In any case, the age issue is secondary. The really telling evidence that William "Crpener" was not William of Rehoboth is the fact that the former man signed with his mark; the latter was both town and proprietors' clerk at Rehoboth and left many books to his children, some of which were in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. It defies credulity to suppose that he acquired such erudition after 1628, when he was about 23, and up to then couldn't even write his name. Gene Z.