Naturally the Puritan was deeply exercised by the same scruples. He sorely dreaded lest through extending the means of grace to his serf Christ should inadvertently be put "in bondage." But he solved the problem in the same way as his southern brother--at the expense of the bondman. In Massachusetts as in Rhode Island slavery was consecrated "without regard to the religion of the slave."[695] Accordingly in 1696 "the ministers of Boston" submitted to the general court "That y^e wel-knowne Discouragem^t upon y^e endeavours of masters to Christianize their slaves, may be removed by a Law which may take away all pretext to Release from just servitude, by receiving of Baptisme." But to the credit of the court, we are told, "this proposal was not noticed."[696] Over forty years later a different result was reached by the clergy of Connecticut. At a meeting of the General Association for that colony in 1738, "It was inquired--whether the infant slaves of Christian masters may be baptized in the right of their masters--they solemnly promising to train them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord: and whether it is the _duty_ of such masters to offer such children and thus religiously to promise. Both questions were affirmatively answered."[697] Thus the negro of Connecticut was admitted to the covenant of grace without jeopardizing his owner's chattel interest in his body. [Footnote 695: It was consecrated "sans égard à la religion de l'esclave": CARLIER, _Histoire du peuple américain_, I, 364; _cf._ also HILDRETH, _Hist. of U. S._, I, 372.] [Footnote 696: BLISS, _op. cit._, 92.] [Footnote 697: Taken from MOORE, _Notes on Hist. of Slavery in Mass._, 92, note, who cites _Records as Reported by Rev. C. Chapin, D.D., Quoted in Jones's Religious Instruction of the Negroes_, 34. _Cf._ STEINER, "Hist. of Slavery in Conn.," _J. H. U. S._, XI, 386.]