A true CONFUTATION Of a Falso and scandalous Pamphlet, entitled, The true state of the Case of Sir john Gell, Lately published to deceiv the People, and to smother Sir John Gell's Confederacy with Colonel Andrews and others, under Oath of Secrecy, to destroy the present GOVERNMENT.  
Or a sober VINDICATION of the COUNCIL of STATE, and High Court of JUSTICE from the impudent aspersions of that PAMPHLET.  
Published to undeceiv all the well-affected of this COMMONWEALTH.  
By John Bernard Gent. Captain of a Troop of Horse in the Service of the Parliament.  
LONDON, Printed by Will. Du Gard. 1650.   

THe Pamphlet we have to deal with, is a vafrous piece, made up of divers sorts of Scandals (of things and persons) some pointing directly at the present Government, others in a more obliqne line. And some are the scandals of persons, to leave an odium upon particular men. We think not to cut our way through the whole Pamphlet, or follow as it leads to every particular page. The chief strength and substance of the whole lies in the two first pages, wherein the Pamphletier pretends to give a true ground, or state of the Case of Sir John Gel. And here we shall lay our batteries, and put it to the issue in this short Answer, whether the Man in this great undertaking deale's indeed truly, or but prevaricate's. The Argument, as he calls it, or Conclusion contein's the results upon the whole, and his illations and inferences, which must needs be falls from falls premises. And it is too great a concession in any wise man to argue with his Antagonist (otherwise then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) upon a falls principle. It is to invert the true rules of Logic, and change all into fallacies. Allow this, and the Sophister will conclude the day to be night, and truth error, and light darkness, and turn the honestest man living with his heels upwards and conclude him a very knave. I have (the better to enable the Reader to a true judgement of the thing in question 'twixt me and the Pamphletier) distinguished the things contained in the two first pages with a lesser Character, and the Answer with a greater.  Pamphlet. That John Bernard, with one Pits (by the name of Smith) desired Mr Andrews to join with them in a plot, to surprise the Isle of Ely. 
Answer. It is an ill Omen, when the man stumble's at the threshold, and offends against the truth at the first setting out. In his Pamphlet he says, that Lieut. Pit desired Mr Andrews to join in a plot etc. It is appealed to Mr Andrews himself, who in his own Narrative sent by himself to the Council of State, and now remaining with the High Court of Justice, says expressly, that Lieutenant Pit (whom he calls there by the name of Smith) was an absolute stranger to him (the said Andrews) till the 18 of March 49, which was (but) 6 or 7 days before Mr Andrew's apprehension at Gravesend.  
And for that of john Bernard's being charged by the Pamphletier to invite Master Andrews to the plot etc. If Master Andrews affirms, and john Bernard denies, and leave the plot where he found it first, to wit, with Master Andrews, we shall expect so much justice from the unprejudiced slander by, as to credit rather john Bernard (a friend) denying upon his oath, than Master Andrews (an Enemy) affirming on his bare word.  Pam. That Andrews was thought to be somewhat inclinable thereunto: Bernard comes to the Lord Precedent Bradshaw, and acquaint's him with it. 
Ans. That Master Andrews was thought &c. by this Pamphletier's leave, it is (more than thought) known, acknowledged by Master Andrews himself in the forementioned Narrative, that the plot to surprise the Isle of Fly was a brat begot of his own brain in the year-44. Master Andrew's own words are— A design in the time of War laid by me for the taking of the Isle of Ely. It was Mr Andrew's own plot ab o●o by his own confession: and however the Pamphletier would dawb it over, and gull the world that Mr Andrews was (but) thought to be somewhat inclinable thereunto, yet let Mr Andrew's own hand speak his heart in this matter. They are his very expressions to a title all of his own hand-writing, and at this day remaining with the High Court of justice, viz — I approve the putting of the Reformadoes forward to prosecute the getting of their arrears out of the fines or forfeitures of persons delinquent, but not that they be further acquainted with the design, then to be ready in general terms when they shall see cause, and the place secure to repair to etc. I would that Captain john B. go along with me on Thursdaie next into C. Shire, and receiv satisfaction there concerning the design, and to pass to Sir I. G. and acquaint him with it, and from him again bring to a place which at parting with him I shall agree with him upon an assurance how far he will engage, and how soon be ready. That done I will post a servant over, or go myself and get out Commissions for officers General with power to give Commissions to officers inferior, &c To draw in the Reformadoes, they are to be assured to have Commssions answerable to their former qualities, and pay as they muster; to which end an Establishment shall be had: thus Mr Andrews. And when examined upon this paper of his before the Council of State he confess▪ d ingenuously that by the design (there) spoken of, was meant the surprisal of the Isle of Elie, and by john B. john Benson, and that by Sr I▪ G. was meant Sr john Gell, though the Pamphletier would have kept us in the dark as to all this, yet we see Mr Andrews in this far honester than the other) deal's more plainly in the matter.  
But the Pamphletier (now) venture's (impudently enough) upon the Lord Precedent Bradshaw, and there the  wring's extremely. For no fewer than eleven several times he bring's this Honourable and public Minister of State upon the Stage. And the Lord President's crime is, that he entertained Mr Bernard's discovery of a real plot to destroy the State. The Man's anger is, not that the State is designed upon by evil and unthankful men; but he would have them prosper in their wickedness, and it offends (even to rage) that any true and faithful patriot should wake and watch in the preservation of the Commonwealth, and bring to light things that lie hid in darkness; otherwise, why not come to the Lord Precedent with our honest matters? (such as are discoveries of the plots of Knaves upon the State) and why not acquaint him with them? But the Pamphleter's anger is still and his fellows, that there are in the Land, Courts of Justice and public Ministers to punish Treasons and Rebellions, and the wicked actings of men against the State. It bring's to remembrance a pleasant story of a famous Thief in Queen Elisabeth's days, that Petitioned the Queen for the good behaviour against the Lord Chief-Justice Popham, because he sought his life in all places, and he went in danger of him (continually) for his life. May be we shall have Sr john Gell's friends (such as this Pamphletier and others) Petition for the good behaviour against the Council of State and High Court of Justice, because in all their treacherous designs upon the State, they go in danger of their lives.  Pam. The Lord President bids Bernard go forward with the plot, as Bernard declares in Court at the trial of Andrews. 
Answ. Not an honest man but will say it was the duty of the Lord President and Council of State, and their Honour both to intent the good and safety of the public, and to that end to bid and encourage Bernard to pursue the treacherous plot to a full discovery. And Bernard declares (not in Court only, but) again and again in his Vindication (here) that (besides the Lord President and Council of State) He had the encouragement of divers others, friends and true lovers of this Common wealth, to follow close and not give over to sound the plot (for it lay deep) to the very bottom.  Pam. That Bernard did go again with Pitts to Andrews, and told him that if he would draw an Oath of secrecy and sign and seal the same, than Bernard would help him to 200 l. to bear his charges beyond Sea, to get Commissions to raise men for the effecting the said plot. And that both Bernard and Pitts, did promise to sign and seal the Oath of secrecy likewise. 
Answ. That Bernard did go again with Pitts etc. Still the supposition is falls of the acquaintance (to any proportion of time) betwixt Lievt. Pitts and Master Andrews, when Pitts was not known to him (as before attested from Andrew's own mouth) till within six or seven days of his apprehension at Gravesend. The other things charged by the, Pamphletier, viz. of Bernard's helping Andrews to 200 l. and Bernard and Pitts promising to sign the Oath of secrecy, it is referred to Bernard's Remonstrance of Sept. 10. now published in print, where 'tis spoken in this particular to full satisfaction.  Pamph. That Andrews being in necessity, upon Bernard's motion did sign and seal the Oath aforesaid. 
Answ. It is the first truth we have obtained of the Pamphletier since we met, that Andrews signed and sealed the Oath. And because the bringing this dark and wicked plot to light is grudged at so generally, and the thing christened by the Pamphletier (pag. 7.) by the pretty names of Fantasy, and Fiction, and Play, I shall present you with the Oath itself, or Engagement (a true Copy of it ad verbum) extracted out of the Original, now with the High Court of Justice, viz.  
WE the Subscribers, (having first taken our voluntary oath upon the holy Evangelists, to be true, faithful, and secret each to other, in, and concerning our subsequent Engagement; and not to impart the same, nor any the designs whatsoëver in order to the execution of the same, proposed, and to be hereafter enterprised to any person (King Charles and the Lord Hopton excepted) but under the l●ke oath of secrecy, do solemnly vow and protest in th● presence of God almight●e, That we will do and use all our possible kill and endeavour (though to the hazard of our lives and fortunes) to settle and establ●sh ●harls the second, our rightful and lawful Prince, in his thron● of England, against all Rebels, usurpers, or opposers whats●ëver. Signed with our hands, and sealed with our seals Decimo Octavo Martii, secundo Caroli secundi An. Dom. 1649.  
This is the Oath or Engagement alias the Pamphletiers play, fantasy, fiction to lead in to the plot laid not so much for the Isle of Ely, and ●yn, and Yarmouth, as for the ruin of the whole N●tion, Parliament, Council, soldiery, Government and all; and introducing a strange thing, a stranger King amongst us. It is left to every man (not poisoned with this Pamphletier▪ s principles) to make a judgement of this oath, whether persons that can lodge such vipers in their bosoms, walk which such kill daggers in their heads, that meditate nothing but murders, and the slaughters of the best friends of this Commonwealth, aught to be tolerated with us, and not rather to be cast forth (at least) and proscribed, both they the wretched Autors of these things, and all that adhere to them, and plead for them, though under the most specious pretences whatsoëver. But the Pamphletier tell's, That Andrews his necessity did provoke to this oath, (as if there were a necessity of doing evil) and that Bernard wrought upon this necessity, and moved Andrews to the thing. For the truth of this we shall appeal to no other witness than Andrews himself, in his own Narrative sent from the Gatehous to the Council of State. His words are: About nine a clock of night March 19 1649. I was sent for by Captain Ashley and Benson to subscribe the Engagement which Benson had ingross'd. Again, in his Examination taken before the Council of State, the said Master Andrews confesseth thus expressly: That his hand and seal was to the parchment Engagement (then) showed to him (which was upon the 19 of March, 1649.) at a cook's shop near Tower hill, where Ashley and Benson then also signed and sealed, and all those took the oath of secrecy. Here we find Ashley and Benson (by Andrews' own free confession) but no Bernard moving or inviting (in the least) to the Engagement. And for Bernard's signing this Engagement (for oath of secrecy nor he, nor Lieut. Pitts did ever enter into) he refers to his Remonstrance of Sept. 10. 1650.  Pamph. That Bernard and Smith did sign and seal the oath also. 
Answ. And for this likewise we refer to our Remonstrance above mentioned.  Pamp. Then Bernard desired Andrews to write a Letter to some persons of note to subscribe the oath. Andrews thereupon writes a Letter directed to Sir john Baronet. 
Ans. Andrews himself says otherwise, that not at the request or instigation of Bernard, but he wrote his Letter to Sir john Gell upon a Letter he received from Benson to invite to that purpose. This Master Andrews confesseth at large in his own Narrative sent from the Gate-hous (besides Benson's confession, now upon record, of the very something.) Moreover, Andrews saith in that very Narrative that the Letter here directed to Sir john Baronet (with a blank, he intended it verily to Sir john Gell, only left out the name Gell for a blind in case of surprisal. Here Andrews himself speaks his own since in his own words.— He wrote a Letter from New Inn at Gravesend to to Sir john Gell which he sent by Mr Bernard, and that he believe's the paper now subscribed by the now Examiner's directed for Sir john (with a blank) Baronet is a true copy thereof; and that the Blank was intended for Gell, which was so advised, lest the Letter should be surprised. All this is confessed by Andrews himself in his examination taken before the Council of State; besides that he says in his Narrative (to the very same purpose) sent from the Gate-hous.  Pam. That assoon as this was done, Bernard had officers ready, seized on Andrews for High Treason, and then bring's the Letter directed to Sir john Baronet to the Lord Precedent Brashaw. 
Answ. The man is wide of the thing, and (still) report's falsely. Bernard had not officers ready, nor was Andrews seized upon assoon as he had finished his letter to Sir john Gell; for the letter was wrote on Friday, March 22. 49. And Andrews not seized on till the munday following. But it still troubl'es the Pamphletiers spirit, that Bernard should carry Letter, directed to Sir john Baronet, to the Lord Precedent Bradshaw▪ So than if it can be made appear that Bernard did not carry this Letter to the Lord Precedent (as indeed he did not) we hope this will cure him of his evil spirit; Truly no, the Man's design is upon the Lord Precedent still, and he cares not who escape, so his venomous pen fasten's there. But admit the Letter had been carried to the Lord Precedent (as it was not, but presented to the Council of State by the hand of Master Legate.) Surely the inference must be an argument of the care and watchfulness of the Lord Precedent, and his faithfulness to his trust, to discover enemies, and secure friends, and seek the welfare of a poor Nation.  Pam. That the Lord Precedent kept the Letter, and lets Bernard and Pits have a copy of it. 
Ans. In this the Pamphletier speaks most impudently falsely— that the Lord Precedent kept the Letter; for the Lord Precedent did not keep the Letter; nor had Bernard and Pits a copy of it. This is the very truth, and to give undoubted witness to it, call forth Master Andrews (once more) to repeat his examination taken before the Council of State; his confession is thus to a syllable, viz. That he wrote a Letter from New Inn at Gravesend to Sir john Gell which he sent by Master Bernard; and that he beleeve's, the paper now subscribed by the Examiner's directed for Sir john (with a blank) Baronet is a true copy thereof, and that the blank was intended for Gell; which was so advised lest the Letter should be surprised.  
In this very confession we have a candle of Master Andrew's own lighting, to discover whether the Letter (showed to him by the Council of State at the time of his Examination) was the original Letter he writ from Gravesend to Sir John Gell, or (but) a copy of it. Master Andrew's Answer in the Case is most positive, and without the least hesitation, to wit, that he believes that the Paper shown to him by the Council of State, directed for Sir John (with a blank Baronet) is a true Copy thereof. If a true Copy, than not the Original, as is most falsely, and with malice enough, charged upon the Lord Precedent, to wit, that he kept the original Letter in his own hand, and delivered Bernard but) a Copy to carry to Sir john Gell, when Andrew's himself confesse's the clean contrary, viz. That the Letter showed to him by the Council of State was the same (indeed) for matter with that he wrote to Sir john Gell, but not the same original and numerical Letter. Master Andrews himself, in the presence of many Honourable witnesses, acknowledging it no more than a Copy. Now if the Pamphletier still holds of the mind that the Original Letter (for all this) is with the Council of State, or with the Lord Precedent, Master Andrews (his friend) tell's him to his face he speaks falsely, there's no original Letter there, nothing but a Copy. Or if Sir john Gell can tell tidings of this Letter (so much controverted) (and such a thing he did insinuate to the High Court at his Trial) he should do well to produce it; but this is one of Sir john Gell's tricks of Legerdemain and his complices, to say and unsaie, to boast of great matters, but nascitur mus. If Sir john knows of this Letter, as he would make all men believ, let him bring it forth that we may believ him at least in this, to be no hypocrite and Impostor-  Pamph. That Bernard and Pitts bring's the Copy, as they say, to Sir John Gell. 
Answ. Surely this man will never speak true again▪ twice Master Andrews hath told him (if he can believ a man of his own Religion) that the Copy of the Letter was left with the Council of State, and yet (nolit velit veritas) he will have Bernard and Pitts bring this Copy (not the Original, but) the Copy of it to Sir John Gell. Besides he tell's in his Pamphlet, that Bernard and Pits brought the Copy (as they say.) Who wiil believ this man, if ever he should speak true again, that drives a full trade of very tales. Bernard and Pits brought the copy to Sir John Gell, there's one; and they say so, there's another. I think 'twere good this same copy of Master Andrews' Letter were hanged up in Westminster Hall amongst the Scotch Clouts, to convince this Pamphletier and all his fellow infidels, that there it is.  Pamph. That Bernard and Pitts both say, Sir John Gell did refuse to act in the same plot, and so burned the Letter. 
Answ. Bernard and Pitts say still (even what this Pamphletier please's) but it will prove a question shortly, how Sir john Gell, upon the delivery of the Letter to him, should (all) on the sudden refuse to act in a plot he had waded in some months with so much zeal. Let Andrews be heard speak to clear the thing, the very words in his own Narrative sent from the Gatehous, are these, viz. About the midst of December 49. I was invited to give Sr john Gell a meeting, and amongst other discourses, Sr john Gell did take notice of his irrequital for his service and his losses, and the misapplication of his and other's services to an end they intended not, and that he desired to be so understood, and when opportunity should be, to be so represented to the Prince, and did intimate, that if ever he took up arms again, it should be for the Prince, and at several other subsequent meetings the discourses were general, and much to this purpose.  
And again in Mr Andrews' examination taken by the Council of State, he confesseth very distinctly thus, viz. that Sr John Gell complained, he had not his pay, nor was considered for his service, and that he intended not the end that was now brought about, and desired to be so understood by the King; And that the Examinant, upon opportunity, should so represent it, and his willingness to do the King service. Mr Andrews saith further in the same Examination, that Sr john Gell had twice or thrice in March last bespoken him to beget a good opinion of him in the King; And was not satisfied in the way he had taken formerly, and that he was sorry for what he had done against his Father, and if the King should hear he was in arms, it should be upon his score. One thing more yet Mr Andrews will tell us concerning this matter of Sr john Gell's refusing to act in the plo●, how unlikely it is. The words in Mr Andrews's own Narrative sent from the Gate house are these to a tittle, viz. Wednesdaie 20. March last I wrote to Sir john Gell to meet me at dinner, he promised to come, but came not, and sent his man to excuse him and defray the charge, and that afternoon I saw him by chance, and he told me that he had not subscribed, nor would, but what he had said to me as touching his reality to the Prince, I might engage myself for. Now put all altogether, and then let me ask the Pamphletier what he thinks of Sr john Gell's refusing to act in Andrews' plot and the rest of them: and whether he believe's it (still) in truth that Bernard and Pitts did ●ver utter such a thing.  Pam. That the Letter was brought to Sr john Gell as Bernard and Pitts on a Saterdaie night after ten of the Clock. 
Answ. It is acknowledged that Bernard and Capt. Pitts did bring Andrews' letter (writ at Gravesend) to Sr john Gell, to his lodging (then) in the Sanctuary Westminster, and did present the said Letter to Sir john Gell's own hands about eight (not ten) a Clock, Saterdaie night: and what will the Pamphletier infer hence?  Pam. Hear himsef. that Mr Spittlehous a Messenger, had a warrant the next morning early (being the Lord's day) to apprehend Sr john Gell; All this of this libeler is very falls: for neither had Mr Spittlehous a Warrant the next morning early (being the Lord's day), nor indeed had any Warrant at all (first or last) to apprehend Sir john Gell. True it is Sir john Gell was apprehended by Warrant from the Council of State; but the Pamphletier, for haste, mistakes the Name, mistakes the day; the Warrant was not drawn up till munday morning, March 25. 49. And then directed to Captain Thornton, and yet not executed by him (neither) till one or two a Clock that day. Pam. That it does clearly appear that the Lord Precedent was privy to all these proceed. 
An. This ignorant & malicious Pamphletier must konws (unless he and the rest of them will be ignorant & blind for all the light) that it is most consistent with the duty of all public Ministers of State to be privy to the treasonable plots, and practices of wicked men against the State, such as this of Andrews and Sir john Gell, and the others of that confederacy. And we hope it will open the the Eye of Authority wider, and call to more jealousy and watchfulness, when the loose pen of every vile Pamphletier shall dare to arraign even Justice itself, and the public Adminstrators of it at the bar of Traitors.  
FINIS.