■WILLIAM AKM MAEY.

89

' The progress of the hill was easy. Only one amendment of chap.grave importance was proposed. Some zealous churchmen in ■ -the Commons suggested that it might be desirable to grant thetoleration only for a term of seven years, and thus to hind overthe nonconformists to good behaviour. But this suggestionwas so unfavourably received that those who made it did notventure to divide the House. *

The King gave his consent with hearty satisfaction: the billbecame law; and the Puritan divines thronged to the QuarterSessions of every county to swear and sign. Many of themprobably professed their assent to the Articles with some tacitreservations. But the tender conscience of Baxter would notsuffer him to qualify, till he had put on record an explanationof the sense in which he understood every proposition whichseemed to him to admit of misconstruction. The instrumentdelivered by him to the Court before which he took the oaths isstill extant, and contains two passages of peculiar interest. Hedeclared that his approbation of the Athanasian Creed wasconfined to that part which was properly a Creed, and that hedid not mean to express any assent in the damnatory clauses.

He also declared that he did not, by signing the article whichanathematizes all who maintain that there is any other salvationthan through Christ, mean to condemn those who entertain ahope that sincere and virtuous unbelievers may be admitted topartake in the benefits of Redemption. Many of the dissentingclergy of London expressed their concurrence in these charit-able sentiments. **

The history of the ComprehensionBill presents a remarkable TheCom-

J r 1 prehen-

contrast to the history of the Toleration Bill. The two bills had sion mila common origin, and, to a great extent, a common object.

* Commons’Journals, May 17. 3689.

** Sense of the subscribed articles by the Ministers of London, 1690;

Calamy’s Historical Additions to Baxter’s Life.