The popular idea that baptism conferred freedom upon slaves aroused eventually so much discussion among both the colonists and the representatives of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, and so many inquiries were addressed to the home government concerning the matter, that in 1729 the opinions of Talbot and Yorke, the attorney and solicitor generals of England, were expressed on the subject. Their decision was in accord with the acts of the various colonial legislatures to the effect that baptism did not confer freedom upon slaves. The declaration of Gibson, Bishop of London, about the same time, also, that “Christianity and the embracing of the Gospels does not make the least alteration in civil property”, practically ended the discussion.[1065] Turning now to a consideration of the question of manumission, it may be said that an Indian slave, like a negro of like condition, might obtain freedom during the latter’s lifetime, or by testamentary disposition at the owner’s death. His freedom might be purchased either by himself or others. A colonial court might declare him free if it were found that he was illegally held or misused. A colonial government, also, might grant him freedom for some special service rendered. Action of the owner was naturally the most common way of conferring freedom.[1066] When freedom was bestowed during the owner’s lifetime, a deed of manumission was usually given in order to avoid future complications.[1067] Occasionally in special instances the colonial government recognized such action of the slave owners as legal. For instance, the South Carolina Board of Counsel, August 3, 1711, in its directions to the Indian traders provided that any Indians taken captive in war and declared free by their respective masters who had a right so to act, should be deemed free men.[1068] Record exists of Indian slaves purchasing their freedom from two sources, viz.: the colonial governments that held them before they were transferred to individual owners, and the individual masters themselves. In Plymouth, March 5, 1668, it was ordered that a certain Indian held at Boston “for matter of fact”, since there was “a probability of a tender of some land for his ransom from being sent to Barbadoes”, should be freed from such slavery on the tender of the land in question.[1069] A similar instance occurred in Connecticut. One of the earliest land grants of that colony was conveyed to its owner by the Indian chief, Uncas, in 1678, in exchange for Betty, an Indian woman taken captive in King Philip’s War.[1070] Experience Mayhew relates the instance of an Indian slave who, after his master’s death, purchased his freedom from his mistress on easy terms, “his master having never designed to keep him a slave all his days”.[1071] Another instance, in 1709, shows an Indian slave woman sold to a free Indian to become his wife, in return for certain land.[1072]