3. That they took exception to him for these two doctrines from II Sam. xii, 7. First, that ministers must sometimes apply their teaching in particular to special persons; secondly, that great men may be reproved as well as humble. Ans: Their answer was that both these charges were without truth or colour of truth—as was proved to his face—and that they had taught and believed this long before they knew Mr. Lyford. 4. That they tried to ruin the private settlers, as was proved by this: they would not allow any of the colony either to buy or sell with them, or to exchange one commodity for another. Ans: This was a most audacious slander, and void of all truth as was proved to him before all, for any of them bought, sold or exchanged with them as often as they pleased—and also both lent and gave to them, when they wanted; and this the private settlers themselves could not deny, but freely confessed in open court. But the ground whence this slander arose made it much worse; for he was at the council with them, when a man was called before them, and was questioned for receiving powder and biscuit out of the company’s supplies from the gunner of the small ship, which he had arranged should be put in at his window in the night; and also for buying salt of one who had no right to it. Lyford not only backed this defaulter—who was one of these private settlers—by excusing and extenuating him; but upon this ground he built this mischievous and false slander; that because they would not suffer a private settler to buy stolen goods, ergo, they sought their utter ruin: Bad logic for a divine! 5. Next he accused them of forcing men to become private settlers, on their own resources, and then seeking to starve them, and deprive them of all means of subsistence. Ans: To this it was answered, he did them manifest wrong, for they had turned none upon their own resources who had not of their own importunity and earnest desire urged and constrained them to do it. They appealed to the persons themselves for the truth of it, and they testified against him before all present, and that they had no cause to complain of any hard or unkind usage. 6. He accused them with unjust distribution, and wrote that it seemed strange that some should be allowed 16 lbs. of meal per week, and others only 4 lbs. And then adds floutingly: it seems that some men’s bellies and mouths are very little and slender compared with others!