[129] The bigoted and unfeeling spirit which controlled the authorities is well expressed in the act of May, 1743. Proceeding on the assumption that the Separatists, taking advantage of the act of May, 1708, were responsible for the disruptive tactics and measures of the times, by means of which “some of the parishes established by the laws of this Colony ... have been greatly damnified, and by indirect means divided and parted,” the General Court repealed the act in question, and put in its place the following: “And be it further enacted, that, for the future, if any of His Majesty’s good subjects, being protestants, inhabitants of this Colony, that shall soberly dissent from the way of worship and ministry established by the laws of this Colony, that such persons may apply themselves to this Assembly for relief, where they shall be heard. _And such persons as have any distinguishing character, by which they may be known from the presbyterians or congregationalists, and from the consociated churches established by the laws of this Colony, may expect the indulgence of this Assembly_ [Italics mine.—V. S.], having first before this Assembly taken the oaths and subscribed the declaration provided in the act of Parliament in cases of like nature.” (_The Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut_, vol. viii, p. 522. _Cf._ Backus, _History of New England_, vol. ii, p. 58.) [130] _The Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut_, vol. viii, p. 454. [131] _Ibid._, p. 456. [132] _The Pub. Records of the Colony of Conn._, vol. viii, p. 456. [133] _Ibid._, p. 457. [134] Backus, _History of New England_, vol. ii, p. 57. [135] Cobb, _The Rise of Religious Liberty in America_, pp. 274 _et seq._ Greene, _The Development of Religious Liberty in Connecticut_, pp. 244 _et seq._ [136] _Cf. supra_, note 1, p. 57. [137] Backus, _History of New England_, vol. ii, pp. 59 _et seq._, 62, 65 _et seq._, 77 _et seq._, 81 _et seq._ [138] Greene, _The Development of Religious Liberty in Connecticut_, pp. 248–262. The difficulties experienced by three congregations in New Haven, Canterbury, and Enfield, are dealt with in detail. [139] A revision of Connecticut laws took place in 1750. The unjust legislation of 1742–43 and of the following years was quietly left out. [140] _Papers of the New Haven Colony Historical Society_, vol. iii, pp. 398 _et seq._ [141] _Acts and Laws of the State of Connecticut, in America_, p. 21. [142] _Acts and Laws of the State of Connecticut, in America_, p. 21. [143] Parker, _History of the Second Church of Hartford_, pp. 170, 171. _Cf._ Beecher, _Autobiography, Correspondence, etc._, vol. i, p. 302. The latter’s account of the situation is much softened by his sympathies with the dominant party.