so Cantabrigianas 
et CANTare pares, et refpendere parati. 
Some Wags, knowing, that the learned 
Doftor held opinions different from the 
difputants, and fulpecting that he con- 
ceived the difputants themfelves to be 
fcarcely in earneit, cbferved, that he laid 
peculiar emphafis on the word, CAN- 
FARE. 
CXXV. ARCHDEACON PALEY. 
‘Was formerly fellow and tutor of 
hrift’s College. 
We do not ‘recollect, that the misutize 
ef his creed are before the public : on 
that fabject therefore, we.are, in ike man- 
ner, filent. But recollecting his good-hu- 
moured declaration againft too ftrict a 
conformity in matters of faith, his at- 
tachment tothe reforming party ia the 
univeriity, together with his openly a- 
vowed ‘refpect, exprefled to his friend, 
Bithop Law, to whom, in a ftrain of the 
warmett panegyric, he dedicates his Mo- 
RAL PHILOSOPHY; recollecting, : alfo, that 
ke bas, in print, when fpporting a publi- 
eation of Bithop Law’s, protefed againit 
fub{eription to the Thirty-nine Artic! eS 5 
Feco Hesting thefe and other tokens of his 
liberal turn ak thinking, we are conftrained 
to give Archdeacon Paley a place among 
the Cambridge reformers. 
All this is not fo inconfiftent with his 
celebrated Chapter on Subfcription, as 
fome may imagine; that being in faét the 
laf effort of an ingenious mind to fof- 
ten the rigour of a prattice, which he 
could not ferioufly approve, but which 
be could not effectually alter; and is in- 
eed a guide to people, not how they may 
believe before they fub{cribe; but how they 
may fubfcribe withoutavery hearty aflent. 
CXXVi. MR. ROBERT TYRWHITT. 
This gentleman was formerly fellow of 
Jelus Coliege, where, though be has re- 
ficned his fellowfhip for many years, he 
ftill continues to refide, much refpected in 
his own fociety, and in the univerfity at 
large, being himfelf devoutly attached to 
alma mater. We have already had oc- 
eafion to mention him, but as he appears 
to bethe man, who firft ftirred the queftion 
of Subfcription in the univerfity, it’ be- 
comes us to fpeak more e diftingdly of him 
under-this article. 
The firlt oceafion on which Mr. Tyr- 
whit excited the public attention of the 
Univer fity for the freedom of his fenti- 
.ments, was, on offering certain queftions 
to the Regius Profeflor, Dr. Rutherforth, 
when about to keep what is called an act 
in the Divinity Schools. The quettions, 
which he was allowed to defend may 
ke feen in Bihhop Watfon’s preface 
ee 
to his Theological Tracts. The other 
queftions Proteflor Rutherforth would not 
fuffer to be propofed, and dilperfed ‘ nar- 
ratives,”? (theie are Dr. Jebb’s words) 
of hisengagement with Tyrwhitt all over 
England. > The latter queftions were 
thefe, : : 
1. Preces Chritiahorumi ad Deum fo- 
lim, patrem Jefu Chrifti, dirigenca funt. 
2. In coetum Chitin recipiendi - 
funt, qui Jefum pto vero Meffia agnofeunt, 
et Ps longe inferiorem, vel etiam 
meram hominem, effe credant. 
3. Lex Chriftiana eternis poenis non 
me. 
Nullum fider Chriftiane dogma in 
Abie Scripturis traditum eft, reétz ration 
diflentaneum. 
This was the latter end of the year 
1770, of the beginning of 1771: 
he oe. a very alarming fermon at 
St. Mary’s; one of the points difcuffed 
being, that Tope doctrine, the mere 
humanity of Chr.it. 
Mr. Tyrwhitt’s memorable Graee for 
removing fub{fcription to King James’s 
three darling articles from gen lemen on 
taking their destees, we have already laid 
baieee our. readers. This was in June 
1771, The caput did not permit this 
Grace ta be brought before the univerfity, 
but affigued no’ reafon. The following 
Decenhe er Mr.-Tyrwhitt offered anot her 
Grace to permit ¢ centlemen to take their 
bachelor of arts degree, without fub!cribs« 
ing the Thirty-nine “Articles. This Grace 
alfo was rejected by the Caput, and the fol- 
lowing reafon was afligned ; “ That the 
univerlity bad no power of making fo 
material a change, and that the times were 
not favourable to fo great an undertaking, 
which required the flow and wife delibe. 
rations of the legiflature, not the partial 
determinations ot a few academics.” 
The firring of the queftion, however, 
excited great ferment among all parties 
in the Univerfity. 
About the fame time, fome undergra- 
duates petitioned againft fubf{cription to 
the Thirty-nine Articles, at the time of 
taking degrees. The petition was figned 
by a great bcdy of undergraduates, and 
prefeated by Mr. Crawford, tellow-com- 
moner of Queen’s. The Vice Chancellor 
replied, among other things, that he had 
not power to grant their requett. Thefe 
matters form animpor tant era inthe hitory 
of the Univerfity, in which Mr, Tyr- 
whitt makes the moft con{picuous figure. 
Mr. Tyrwhitt took his degree the {ame 
year with Dr. Jebb, and continued his 
invariable friend, and the uniform {upport-. 
er 
in 1774- 
Ne 
