|
|
copy of the will of his br. Edward, that sheds some light on our side of
the water, sent from the Prerogative Ct. of the. Archbp. of Canterbury,
may be read in our Prob. rec. I. 390. JONATHAN, Boston 1648, eldest
s. of Edward of Bednal Green, wh. was elder br. of the preced. m.
Mary d. of Peter Oliver, had Mary and James tw. b. 30 Oct. 1667;
Sarah, 23 Nov. 1669; and Samuel, 10 Dec. 1671; ar. co. 1665; d.
1673. His wid. m. Nathaniel Williams; d. Sarah m. John Clark, Esq.
ROBERT, Boston, had John, bapt. 28 May 1648, "a. six wks. old," says
the ch. rec. but tho. the ancient copy calls him "s. of our br. Robert
I feel compell. aft. long investigat. to say, that it seems to be mistake,
inasmuch as there was no br. Robert S. of our ch. nor does the town rec.
give any such person. To be sure the ch. and town rec. in the orig. for
many early yrs. are both lost, and the copies are of various value; that
of the ch. very far superior to the town copy, especisally as gaps in 1647,
8, and 9 are num. Now, since the name of f. is not seen in any time
bef. nor for a long success. of yrs. aft. if ever, my conject. is, that John,
the ch. bapt. on that day, was s. of Henry, and d. soon. That this may
not appear too hazaradous a guess, I beg, the student of our early manners
to obs. that Henry had brot. to bapt. his three ch. in a short time aft.
their sev. births; but of six succeed. ch. no one was brot. up to the font
bef. the fifth day aft. b. of a seventh, and then the rec. has this strange
relat.: on 15 Apr. 1660, were bapt. ch. of our br. Henry Shrimpton,
Sarah, aged eleven yrs.; Abigail, two yrs.; Bethia, one yr.; and Elizabeth
at five days. The three intermed. were, I presume, d. and my excuse
for omission of such ordinance in the six cases, is, that the f. was too
much impress. with the d. of his s. John. If in opposit. to this conject.
it be suggest. that Henry had deriv. prejudice against the ceremony of
inf. bapt. the inq. natural. springs up, if his conscient. scruple restrain.
him in 1649, and 1653, and 1654, and 1656, and 1658, and 1659, why
should it have relax. in 1660? Still,if my disesteem of the copy in the
old engrossing hand that serves for first ch. rec. seem too confident, I
must be excus. from abundant experience of the errors in such docum.
Our town rec. as it is call. (I mean the oldest MS. venerat. by me, as
the County Recorder's Copy from the lost transcript of the lost orig. rec.
of the town clk. of the writs) asserts falsely, that "Elinor, the d. of
Henry Shrimpton and of his w. Mary, dec. 9 Mar. 1652," on p. 128
whereas Mary was the ch. not the w. and Elinor was the w wh. had
three or four ch. aft. that date of d. and there was no ch. nam. Elinor,
that we hear of. SAMUEL, Boston, s. of Henry, freem. 1673, got off
by fine of L10. from serv. same yr. as constable, to wh. office he was
then chos.; had by w. Elizabeth d. of wid. Elizabeth Roberets of London, Mary, b.
4 Dec. 1666; Martha, 21 Jan. 1671; Samuel, 20 Apr. 1673; and Elizabeth
|
|
