Reasons and Grounds of his Majesties ●●●nswere to the first Proposition.  
The State of the Case is this;  
THE Commissioners for the Parliament, by their Paper of the eighteen of September, did desire, That his Majesty would give his royal assent to this Preposition.  That whereas both Houses of Parliament have been necessitated to undertake a war, in their just and lawful Defence; And that the kingdom of England hath entred into a solemn League and Covenant to prosecute the same: An Act of Parliament may pass, whereby all oaths, Declarations, &c. against the Houses of Parliament, or any for adhering to them, &c. bee declared Null, suppressed and forbidden. 
To this his Majesties answering, That he would consent to an Act, whereby all oaths, &c. bee declared Null, suppressed and forbidden; And not mentioning the recital; The Commissioners, by their Paper of the twentieth of September, do desire his Majesty to Consent, that those words, Whereas both Houses of Parliament have been necessitated to undertake a war, in their just and lawful Defence; And that the kingdom of England hath entred into a solemn League and Covenant to prosecute the same; should bee a part of the Act of Parliament.  
After which his Majesty by his Paper of the twenty fifth of September, in answer to the said Proposition of the eightteenth of September, did Consent thereunto as was desired.  

In this answer, 4 things are considerable:  
1. Whether it can bee ●●●rued an Affirmation or Assent of his Majesty to the Tr●● of the Preamble or recital?  
2. Whether it can amount to any justification of the Parliaments Cause 〈◇〉 Party?  
3. Whether 〈…〉 Construed any condemnation of acknowledgement, or Guilt in his Majesty?  
4. Whether it can bee made use of as any Imputation of guilt to his Majesty himself.   

As to the First;  
1 This cannot be construed an Assertion or Assent of his Majesty to the truth of the preamble, because the words being but a bare recital, and not a positive Sentence, are in construction the words of the two Houses onely, and not of his Majesty. And therfore if the proposition were drawn into an Act in terminis, as it is now proposed, & his Majesty should assent unto that Act, his Consent cannot be extended any further than to the matter enacted, which is; That all Oaths, declarations, &c. against the Houses, should he void; And not to those words, Whereas the two Houses have been necessitated &c. Which words, though they are inserted in the Act of Parliament( as prefaces, and conclusions are) yet are they no essential part of the matter enacted, nor the proper subject for the Kings consent.  
For, as in Statutes heretofore made upon express Petitions, desiring that the King would grant or enact such a thing, &c. the Petitionary part was always construed the words of the Houses, and not of the King: So still every Bill presented to the King, doth either expressly or tacitly pray his royal Assent to the enacting thereof. And when the King giveth his royal Assent, by the usual words ( Le roil Veult) which are the proper words of Assent to a new-law( as this is) those words do formally make it an Act, and are to bee construed no otherwise, but that the King willeth that to bee enacted, wherein the force and life of the Law consists, which is in the Body, and Substance of the Act, and not in the Title or Preamble, or in any Recitalls, Conveyances, Repetitions, or other circumstances therein contained.  
2. The Commissioners desired not his Majesties personal Assent to those Propositions as Truths; but his royal Assent, That they should bee made Acts of Parliament. And the King consents to nothing by his answer, but that his legislative power shall bee made use of to give the several Propositions, presented to him, the force of laws. This Desire appears more particularly in this Proposition than in any of the rest; for that the Commissiners by their Paper of the 20. of September, desired that the recital in in this Proposition should bee part of the Act of Parliament: So that the Consent, which was desired to this Proposition, was not to the Truth of the Matter, or words contained therein: But that those Words or Matter, should be part of the Act of Parliament; and his majesty Assents so far to the Truth of them only, as the Act drawn according to the Proposition binds him, and no further.  
3. There is nothing in the Preamble which is a proper object for his Majesties Consent to work upon, as to the Assertion of Truth: For, whether the two Houses of Parliament were necessitated to undertake the war, or not? Whether the same was Defensive or Offensive of their part? And whether the Defence were just or unjust? are in themselves( especially since they are now past) proper Objects of Opinion and Judgement, and not of Consent or Agreement: And no man can bee thought to consent to the Truth of that, which he cannot possibly know; But whether the Members of both Houses did really apprehended, or only pretend a necessity, when they first undertook this war; And in what sense each of them took the Covenant in relation thereunto, God and their own Consciences only know: the Truth thereof falls not within the possibility of his Majesties knowledge; And therefore cannot reasonably bee inferred, That he meant to Consent thereunto.  
4. When the publique-Faith, and Compact of Truth amongst men is once broken by an open war, nothing Spoken, Replied or Consented unto, on either side, during the hostility, can bee construed or made use of as an Affirmation or Evidence of a Truth; For that the Medium and Rule of Truth is, by the war, taken away, and whatsoever is Necessary, is therefore Just: But hostility and war continue still between his Majesty and the Parliaments Party; There is neither Truce nor Peace yet concluded: So that, if this Treaty end not happily, his Majesties Consent to this Proposition doth no more affirm the veracity of the recital, Nor no more use can be made of it, than of a Discourse passing from a Prisoner at war, or in a Leaguer between two Souldiers Enemies in their several Trenches.  
As to the Second: His Majesties answer cannot amount to a Justification of the Parliaments Cause or Party; For, if the recital in the Preamble bee not true in itself; Or if the Cause and Proceedings bee not just in their own Foundation; No Act of Parliament, much less a recital in a Preamble, can make them either True or Just. For, the power of laws and Statutes is executed in foro externo, only to regulate the outward Actions of men; they cannot operate in foro interno. No Acts of Parliament can make evil Good, or Truth falsehood.  
Again, laws ought to Command, and not to Reason or Dispute; And for that cause Preambles in ancient Statutes were not so frequent as now they are: But they are still unnecessary parts of laws; And though they bee first in Order, yet they are last in Frame, and inserted only to show the Causes which induced the proposal of a new Law. They can Legally neither bee pleaded, as justification of any Act done; nor made use of, as concluding Evidences to convince any man of a Crime. And it is frequent in common experience, That Preambles and Recitalls in Statutes have not the force of Declaratory laws, against any particular Subject, much less against the King: For the Matter and Truth of a Preamble is traversable, and may be subjected to a new trial, either by Record, Jury or otherwise, as the Case shall require: This is therefore so far from being a justification of the Parliaments Party, that it is rather an Argument of the weakness of their Cause; and that the Letter of the Law was formerly very strong against those Proceedings that shall now lay hold on so slender a Twig, as the recital in a Proposition, for their Justification.  
As to the Third: His Majesties answer cannot be construed any condemnation of his own Party, or an acknowledgement of any Guilt in them; For that neither his Majesty, nor his party, are so much as mentioned, either in the Preamble or Proposition; And where there is no positive expression, no man ought to bee made criminous or guilty, especially in capital Offences, by Inferences or Implications. Treason can neither bee committed nor pardonned by Implication: A man must bee attainted of the open Fact by the Stat. 25. Ed. 3. And though it should bee admitted a positive justification of the Parliament, yet it follows not, that therefore it should bee a condemnation of the Kings Party; For that Bellum quoad bonam fidem gerentium, may bee utrinque justum. And if any that have adhered to the King bee indicted or proceeded against Criminally for that Cause; he may, notwithstanding this answer, pled Not Guilty; and legally justify his Actions by the laws now in force, which warrant and require his Duty therein. There is nothing in this answer or Preamble, That doth repeal or Change any former Law, or take from the Subject any Pleas, or privileges, or conclude him from a clear Justification of his own Innocency.  
again, His Majesty, after this proposition delivered to him, and before answer, did declare; as also the two Houses after declared, That nothing in writing concerning any Proposition, should bee binding, prejudicial; or any ways made use of, if the Treaty broken off upon any other Proposition. After which Declaration, his Majesty did deliver his Assent to this Proposition, but it was with respect had to his Majesties Proposition( then intended, and shortly after delivered) for an Act of Oblivion to extend unto all Persons, for all Matters relating to the unhappy differences: So that if the Treaty happily conclude, an Act of Oblivion must pass at the same time when the Act is passed upon this Proposition, which will secure his Majesties Party, and take away the cause of Question, Whether the King or the two Houses had the more lawful Cause of war? And then the Preamble in this Act will remain only as an Addition, or further degree of Security to them, and not as any imputation of Guilt upon his Majesties Party. But if this Treaty unhappily break off, then his Majesties Consent to this Proposition( being relative, and in order only to the whole Treaty) will bee of no effect to any intent or purpose whatsoever.  
As to the Fourth; The King cannot contract any guilt upon his own Person by giving his royal Assent to a Law; or to a Proposition to be made into a Law; for though his Majesties natural person cannot be severed from his politic, yet when be gives his royal assent to a Law; he Acts in his politic capacity only: And therefore it may bee done by a Protector during the minority of a King, And by Commissioners under his Great seal, at any other time; and yet the words of the Assent are not said to bee the words of the Protector, or the Commissioners, but the words of the King in his politic capacity, which is not capable of any Guilt or Imputation whatsoever.  
2. By the Law of England ▪ the King can do no wrong, nor incur any Penalty: The Justices and Ministers are to bee punished, if the laws bee violated, and no reflection to bee made on the King. The very accession of the Crown purges all Attainders and Imputations whatsoever, though they bee laid by Act of Parliament, as was resolved in the Cases of H. 7. & Q. Eliz. The King hath no peer in the land, and therefore cannot bee Judged, Potestatem habet ut Delinquentes puniat & coerceat, ipse vero fatis habet quod Deum expectes ultorem.  
3. And lastly, it hath been ordinary, upon consultations and Agreements for Peace, between Prince and People, to insert Clauses of this nature into the Articles of the Treaty. As for Instance, In the Treaty of Lodun, Anno 1616. between the last French King and his Subjects; Amongst the 54 Articles, one was; That the King should cause an Edict to bee published, wherein he should approve all Actions done by the contrary Party, and aclowledge them to have been done for his Service.  
In the Treaty between Philip the third of spain, and Arch-Duke Albert, with the low-Country-men, 1607. They refused to treat until both the King and the Arch-Duke had declared under their Hands and seals, That they came to treat with them as free States, to which they made no Title or pretention whatsoever. And whereas the King, in his Declaration, had name the Arch-Duke Prince of the low-Countries. They refused to proceed any further until that Title was struck out and omitted; which was done accordingly. And amongst the fifty eight Articles of that Truce, concluded Anno 1609. That Declaration was the first.  
In the late troubles in Naples, the Vice-Roy, upon a Treaty betwixt him and the Revolters, acknowledged all their Proceedings just. Many Precedents of like Nature occur in Stories, especially in the Civill Warres of France, in the times of Charles the ninth, and Henry the third.  
But Clauses of this, or the like kind, were in such Cases always intended, only, for the security of the Subject, and never to bee imputed as any Guilt to the Prince.  
Upon these Reasons & Grounds, His Majesty gave his answer to this Proposition; And if any doubt remain, or any ill use bee made thereof, to his Majesties disadvantage, he may, if the Treaty break off, by his public Declaration, clear his Intentions therein.