opinions then terminated; but a great obstacle vanished out of the path to that wide intellectual liberty which as a nation we now enjoy. CHAPTER IX. Tillotson, shortly before his death, as already related, was engaged with his Episcopal brethren in drawing up certain ecclesiastical regulations to be issued on their authority, but which he afterwards felt would be more effective if published in the King’s name. Shortly after Tenison’s accession to the Archiepiscopate, injunctions were sent forth by Royal command, touching points exactly of the nature indicated to have been discussed in prior Episcopal meetings at Lambeth. When we consider the time of their appearance, we have no doubt the new Archbishop adopted the draft of his predecessor. It appeared in the form of a Royal proclamation, recommending care in conferring orders, condemning pluralities and non-residence, and urging upon Bishops to watch over their Clergy, and promote, through them, the celebration of Sacraments, the visitation of the sick, and the catechetical instruction of the young.[239] [Sidenote: 1695.] The publication of these articles in the King’s name is a fact not to be lightly passed over. Royal letters had been issued by Queen Elizabeth for the reform of ecclesiastical affairs, yet none of them dealt so particularly with abuses as did this mandate of William’s. It is remarkable that Charles I.--the opposite in ecclesiastical and political sentiments to the hero of the Revolution--had addressed to Laud a number of instructions, which strongly resemble those now under notice.[240] After the Restoration, although Charles II. by several missives had exercised immediate authority over the Church, and had given explicit directions as to how the Clergy were to preach,[241] such orders as approach nearest to those of William are found to bear the simple impress of archiepiscopal authority.[242] What had been attempted in the way of Church reform by Sancroft appears in the shape of an agreement between himself and the other Prelates to do things formerly enunciated.[243] The grounds upon which Tillotson and Tenison arrived at the determination to seek Church reform under cover of Royal authority, do not appear; but the proclamations indicate that, at the time, the chief spiritual rulers of the land must have had high views of the prerogatives of the Crown. If since Elizabeth’s Reformation the title of _Head of the Church_[244] had not been legally employed, all which that title could be taken to mean, successive Archbishops of Canterbury--Tillotson and Tenison--were ready to concede; and what is a little curious, in making this concession they could find a precedent in the acts of Archbishop Laud under Charles I. A still more striking example of the interference of the Crown with purely religious subjects will soon come under our notice. [Sidenote: ECCLESIASTICAL REGULATIONS.]