13.08.2013 Views

Genealogical notes of Barnstable families - citizen hylbom blog

Genealogical notes of Barnstable families - citizen hylbom blog

Genealogical notes of Barnstable families - citizen hylbom blog

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

102 GENEALOGICAL NOTES OF BARNSTABLE FAMILIES.<br />

settled till April 2, 1708, when an inventory there<strong>of</strong> was made.<br />

His house and lot were apprised at,<br />

A piece <strong>of</strong> land lying between the lands <strong>of</strong> Israel Garrett,<br />

£8,00<br />

20,00<br />

Lands above John Bodflsh's,<br />

16,00<br />

Meadow adjoining Town Neck,<br />

35,00<br />

do.<br />

37,00<br />

£116,00<br />

All the real estate was assigned to Zachariah, he paying to<br />

the heirs <strong>of</strong> his brother Job Jenkins, deceased, £46, and to his<br />

sister, Elizabeth Jenkins, £52.<br />

Zachariah married and had a large family. Job also married<br />

and had issue. Elizabeth had not married in 1708. She<br />

was then 59 years <strong>of</strong> age.<br />

As this is not a <strong>Barnstable</strong> family I omit details. In the<br />

Cudworth article I referred to this John Jenkins. His history is<br />

an exceedingly interesting one. He was fined £19,10 shillings<br />

for refusing to take the oath <strong>of</strong> fidelity, attending quaker meetings,<br />

and other acts, involving no violation <strong>of</strong> the public peace, or any<br />

immortality. The law requiring all able to bear arms, to take the<br />

oath <strong>of</strong> fidelity, was an old law that had not, in 1658, been enforced<br />

for several years, but as Gen. Cudworth, Isaac Robinson,<br />

and others among the best men in the Colony averred, it was revived<br />

and used as a trap in which to catch some persons who had<br />

conscientious scruples against taking it. I reverence the character<br />

<strong>of</strong> the Pilgrim Fathers ; but I will not therefore paliate or excuse<br />

their faults. Their proceedings against Norton and other<br />

Quakers at Plymouth are justifiable in law, because the Quakers<br />

were the agressors. Norton would fare no better in a court <strong>of</strong><br />

justice to-day, than he did in 1658. The Quakers at Sandwich<br />

were not generally the agressors. They asserted their rights as<br />

<strong>citizen</strong>s, and subjects <strong>of</strong> the British realm. In ecclesiastical mat-<br />

ters they adopted the same broad and tolerant views that the Pilgrim<br />

Fathers had always asserted and always maintained. They<br />

held that the conscience was free ; that man was not responsible<br />

to his fellow men in matters <strong>of</strong> faith, but to God alone. The<br />

fundamental principles <strong>of</strong> the Congregational or Puritan polity<br />

was, that a church should consist <strong>of</strong> as many members as could<br />

conveniently meet together to worship, and that when they had<br />

so met they had a right to elect their own teachers, elders and<br />

other <strong>of</strong>ficers. Those rights were denied to Sandwich Quakers.<br />

The history <strong>of</strong> John Jenkins, as found in the Colony records, in<br />

Bishop and other writers, exemplifies the persecuting spirit which<br />

had crept into the Colony in 1658, defacing the fair record <strong>of</strong> our<br />

fathers.<br />

To pay the fines which Jenkins conscientiously believed to be

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!