proved an obstacle to the 'conversion of these poor people.' The sentiment was so deep and so general that South Carolina in 1712, Maryland in 1715, Virginia repeatedly from 1667 to 1748, set forth by special enactments that baptism did not confer freedom."[694] [Footnote 689: By the act of 1705 already cited: _Acts and Resolves_, I, 578.] [Footnote 690: So in the Pequot War: 4 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, III, 360; in King Philip's War; and by the _Articles of Confederation_ (1643), in _Plymouth Col. Rec._, IX, 4. Compare MOORE, _Notes on Hist. of Slavery in Mass._, 1-10, 30-40.] [Footnote 691: For an interesting discussion of this point see BLISS'S chapter on "Rum and Slavery," _Side-Glimpses from the Col. Meeting-House_, 12 ff.; and WEEDEN, _Ecc. and Soc. Hist._, II, 449-72. Such men as Peter Faneuil and Thomas Amory, of Boston, were "deep" in the rum and slavery business: BLISS, _op. cit._, 15.] [Footnote 692: For examples of advertisements of slave auctions in New England see BLISS, _op. cit._, 15-19.] [Footnote 693: "A deacon of the church at Newport esteemed the slave trade with its rum accessories as home missionary work. It is said that on the first Sunday after the arrival of his slaves he was accustomed to offer thanks 'that an overruling Providence had been pleased to bring to this land of freedom another cargo of benighted heathen to enjoy the blessings of a Gospel dispensation.'"--BLISS, _op. cit._, 22. In general on the slave trade as missionary work see FROUDE, _History of England_, VIII, 439.] [Footnote 694: BANCROFT, _Hist. of U. S._ (New York, 1888), II, 275, 276. On this subject see BRUCE, _Economic Hist. of Virginia_, II, 94-98; the discussion by FISKE, _Old Virginia and Her Neighbors_, I, 16; II, 192-94; and GOODWIN, _The Colonial Cavalier_, 178, who says: "Baptism was permitted to the slave, but with the distinct understanding that it was to make no difference in the condition of bondage of these brothers in Christ." The Virginia law of 1667 will be found in HENING, _Statutes_, II, 260.]