CHAP. VIII.
NEvertheless this Defendant, to vindicate himself, and the integrity of his unblemish't (he hopes he may say, without offence, in this his just and forc't defence) Life and Conversation; and to manifest that the said Protestations; Answers and Pleas are not dilatory, and on purpose to decline a particular Answer, or evade the discussing of the merits of the Cause and Crimes alledged against him in the said Articles; he this Defendant (saving to himself the benefit of his former Allegations, Pleas and Protestations) further (Particularly) answereth and saith,
1. That the first Article in the said Libel (as being only in course) is true, and all the other false, further than is hereafter declared.
2. That the 2, 3, 4, and 5th Articles are Instances and Accusations against this Defendant as a common-mover, exciter and maintainer of Suits and Quar∣rels, which is Barretry, (an offence against the Statute Law and Common-Law of this Realm) and therefore ought not to be Tryed in any Ecclesiastical-Court, as forbidden in the Statute of Provisors, 16 R. 2.5. In derogation of the Courts of our Lord the King (mark how the Spiritual-Courts and the Kings-Courts are op∣pos'd,) implying necessarily, that the King and Parliament did not then look upon the Spiritual Courts to be the Kings Courts, but the High-Priests Courts; nor do they (to this day) hold them in the King's Name and Style, and all their Acts under His Seal; what Policy is it at this time of day to be Independents, (I mean) Noun-Substantives, and stand by our selves?
The said Statute too, 16 R. 2.5. is in pain of a Praemunire, and has a mighty setch and reach, (even over the water, as well as on this side) for the Statute says—The Court of Rome, or elsewhere.
3. The said Defendant, Mr. Hickeringill, had an Information brought against him for Barrety in the Crown-Office, and at a Tryal at Chelmnesford Assizes, (March 3. 1680. for the County of Essex thereupon) amongst 24 Heads of the charge of Barretry exhibited against him (then and there) tried, the 23d Head was the substance of the said 2d, 3d, 4th and 5th Articles (in the Libel aforesaid mentioned) and this Defendant (though pleading his own Cause) was acquitted with honour of this malicious Charge, the Right Worshipful Knights and Gentlemen of that Special Jury not stirring from the Bar, nor the least proof of the Charge made out against him in any one Particular; nor any proof but of the Folly as well as Malice of the Informers, Conspirators, and Pro∣moters then and there.
And must he now again for the same matters be tried again by the Ecclesi∣astical Men, after acquittal in the Courts of our Lord the King, and by Prosecutors that were then Accessories (at least) to the said causeless and malicious Prosecu∣tion; and in defiance too of the said Statute of Provisors?