Wesley Corpus

On Thursday or Friday was delivered out a list of twenty-six men, who were to meet, as a grand jury, on Monday the 22d. But this list was called in the next day, and twenty-four names added to it. Ot this grand jury, (forty-four of whom only met,) one was a Frenchman, who did not understand English, one a Papist, one a professed infidel, three Baptists, sixteen or seventeen others, Dissenters; and several others who had personal quarrels against me, and had openly vowed revenge. To this grand jury, on Monday, the 22d, Mr. Causton gave a long and earnest charge, “to beware of spiritual tyranny, and to oppose the new, illegal authority which was usurped over their consciences.” Then Mrs. Williamson’s affidavit was read: after which, Mr. Causton delivered to the grand jury a paper, entitled,-- ‘A list of grievances, presented by the Grand Jury for Savannah this * day of August, 1737.” This the majority of the grand jury altered in some particulars, and on Thursday, September 1, delivered it again to the court, under the form of two presentments, containing ten bills, which were then read to the people. Herein they asserted, upon oath “'That John Wesley, clerk, had broken the laws of the realm, contrary to the peace of our sovereign lord the king, his crown and dignity. “1. By speaking and writing to Mrs. Williamson, against her husband’s consent. “2. By repelling her from the holy communion. “3. By not declaring his adherence to the Church of England. “4, By dividing the Morning service on Sundays. “5. By refusing to baptize Mr. Parker’s child, otherwise than by dipping, except the parents would certify it was weak, and not able to bear it. “6. By repelling William Gough from the holy communion. “7. By refusing to read the Burial service over the body of Nathaniel Polhill. “8. By calling himself Ordinary of Savannah. “9. By refusing to receive William Aglionby as a godfather, only because he was not a communicant. Sept. 1737. | REV. J. WESLEY’S JOURNAL. 43 “10. By refusing Jacob Matthews for the same reason: and baptizing an Indian trader’s child with only two sponsors.” (This I own, was wrong; for I ought, at all hazards, to have refused baptizing it till he had procured a third.)