became law; and the Puritan divines thronged to the Quarter
Sessions of every county to swear and sign. Many of them probably
professed their assent to the Articles with some tacit
reservations. But the tender conscience of Baxter would not
suffer him to qualify, till he had put on record an explanation
of the sense in which he understood every proposition which
seemed to him to admit of misconstruction. The instrument
delivered by him to the Court before which he took the oaths is
still extant, and contains two passages of peculiar interest. He
declared that his approbation of the Athanasian Creed was
confined to that part which was properly a Creed, and that he did
not mean to express any assent to the damnatory clauses. He also
declared that he did not, by signing the article which
anathematizes all who maintain that there is any other salvation
than through Christ, mean to condemn those who entertain a hope
that sincere and virtuous unbelievers may be admitted to partake
in the benefits of Redemption. Many of the dissenting clergy of
London expressed their concurrence in these charitable
sentiments.85

The history of the Comprehension Bill presents a remarkable
contrast to the history of the Toleration Bill. The two bills had
a common origin, and, to a great extent, a common object. They
were framed at the same time, and laid aside at the same time:
they sank together into oblivion; and they were, after the lapse
of several years, again brought together before the world. Both
were laid by the same peer on the table of the Upper House; and
both were referred to the same select committee. But it soon
began to appear that they would have widely different fates. The
Comprehension Bill was indeed a neater specimen of legislative