“3. By introducing into the church, and service at the altar, compositions of psalms and hymns not inspected or authorised by any proper judicature. “4. By introducing novelties, such as dipping infants, etc., in the sacrament of baptism, and refusing to baptize the children of such as will not submit to his innovations. “5. By restricting the benefits of the Lord’s supper to a small number of persons, and refusing it to all others who will not conform to a grievous set of penances, confessions, mortifications, and constant attendance at early and late hours of prayer, very inconsistent with the labours and employment of this colony. “6. By administering the sacrament of the Lord’s supper to boys ignorant and unqualified; and that notwithstanding of their parents and nearest friends remonstrating against it, and accusing them of disobedience and other crimes. “7. By refusing to administer the holy sacrament to well disposed and well living persons, unless they should submit to confessions and penances for crimes, which they utterly refuse, and whereof no evidence is offered. “8. By venting sundry uncharitable expressions of all who differ from him; and not pronouncing the benediction in church, until all the hearers, except his own communicants, are withdrawn. “9. By teaching wives and servants that they ought absolutely to follow the course of mortifications, fastings, and diets, and two sets of prayers prescribed by him; without any regard to the interests of their private families, or the commands of their respective husbands and masters. “10. By refusing the Office of the Dead to such as did not communicate with him, or by leaving out such parts of the service as he thought proper. “11. By searching into and meddling with the affairs of private families, by means of servants and spies employed by him for the purpose, whereby the peace both of public and private life is much endangered. “12. By calling himself ‘ordinary,’ and thereby claiming a jurisdiction which is not due to him, and whereby we should be precluded from access to redress by any superior jurisdiction.”[209] How did the grand jury deal with these charges? First of all, Mrs. Williamson was called, but acknowledged, in the course of her examination, that she had no objection to Wesley’s behaviour previous to her marriage. After her, Mr. and Mrs. Causton were examined; the former confessing that, if Wesley had asked his consent to marry his niece, he would not have refused it.[210] Ten other witnesses were put into the box, and several of Wesley’s letters to Mrs. Williamson were read.[211] Some days were spent in sifting the business; and then, on September 1, a majority of the jurymen agreed to the following indictments:—