The entrapment defense is a modern creation. It was unknown at common law, and didn't really surface until the Supreme Court's decision in Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932). In the 19th century, defendants occasionally made the argument that they shouldn't be liable if they were entrapped. But courts generally rejected the claim. Here's a particularly memorable (if not terribly prophetic) passage along those lines from an 1864 New York court decision:

Even if inducements to commit crime could be assumed to exist in this case, the allegation of the defendant would be but the repetition of the plea as ancient as the world, and first interposed in Paradise: "The serpent beguiled me and I did eat." That defence was overruled by the great Lawgiver, and whatever estimate we may form, or whatever judgment pass upon the character or conduct of the tempter, this plea has never since availed to shield crime or give indemnity to the culprit, and it is safe to say that under any code of civilized, not to say christian ethics, it never will.

Board of Commissioners v. Backus, 29 How. Pr. 33 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1864).