<< 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.