]
So early as 1644, therefore, the General Court "Ordered and agreed, yt if
any person or persons within ye iurisdiction shall either openly condemne
or oppose ye baptizing of infants, or go about secretly to seduce others
from ye app'bation or use thereof, or shall purposely depart ye
congregation at ye administration of ye ordinance, ... and shall appear to
ye Co't willfully and obstinately to continue therein after due time and
meanes of conviction, every such person or persons shallbe sentenced to
banishment." [Footnote: _Mass. Rec._ ii. 85. 13 November, 1644.]
The legislation, however, was unpopular, for Winthrop relates that in
October, 1645, divers merchants and others petitioned to have the act
repealed, because of the offense taken thereat by the godly in England,
and the court seemed inclined to accede, "but many of the elders ...
entreated that the law might continue still in force, and the execution of
it not suspended, though they disliked not that all lenity and patience
should be used for convincing and reclaiming such erroneous persons.
Whereupon the court refused to make any further order." [Footnote:
Winthrop, ii. 251.] And Edward Winslow assured Parliament in 1646, when
sent to England to represent the colony, that, some mitigation being
desired, "it was answered in my hearing. 'T is true we have a severe law,
but wee never did or will execute the rigor of it upon any.
Pages:
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294