During the protectorate of Richard Cromwell, while the royalists were preparing for the Restoration, Charles employed Dr. Morley as a messenger to the Presbyte- rians. He quickly gained their confidence, because he was known to be a strong Calvinist. He was, more- over, a fit person to instil the Presbyterians with a de- sire for moderation, for he had been a prominent party in the treaty agreed to by Charles I in the Isle of Wight, which favored the Presbyterians in many re- spects. See Presbtteriaxs. It is true Baxter did not very much like Dr. Morley, because, as he complains. Morley " talked of moderation in the general, but woidd come to no particular terms" (^Autobiography, \>.-2\^). Yet Morley himself must have been persuaded of the successful issue of his mission if we judge him by his letter of May 4, 1660, in which he writes : •• I have rea- son to hope that they (i. e. the Presbyterians) v.Lll be persuaded to admit of and submit to episcopal govern- ment, and to the practice of the liturgy in public, so they may be permitted, before and after their sermons, and upon occasional emergencies, to use such arbitrarj- forms as they themselves shall think fit, without mix- ing of anything prejudicial to the government of the Church and State as they shall be settled" (Clarendon, State Pajyers, vi, 738, 743). Upon the royalists, par- ticidarly, Dr. Morley had a good influence. They, as soon as they saw the approach of victory, manifested a too forward zeal, and made uncomfortable threatenings of revenge upon the republican party. Dr. ilorley checked these evil tendencies, and thus softened down all opposition on both sides. Dr. 31orley also, though incorrectly, represented the king's religious views, and refuted the statement that Charles II was a convert to poperj-. Of course Dr. Morley was duped by the king, and could never have served Charles had he known that man to have been a hypocrite. Morley was a diploma- tist, seeking to gain the ascendency of the episcopal party in the English realm, but he was also an honest Christian, and would not have suffered himself to be the tool of an apostate. Indeed his position later in life against papists makes this plainer still. (See below.)
Upon the restoration of Charles II, Dr. Morley was rewarded for his faithfulness to his royal master by el- evation to the bishopric, besides being restored to his canonry, and appointed dean of Christ Church. He
was consecrated bbhop of Worcester in 1660. In 1661 bishop Morley played a prominent part in the Suvuy Conference (q. v.), commissioned to bring about such changes in the liturgy as might enable the Presbyteri- ans and Episcopalians to unite once more. Thoutrh the archbishop of York was present, Morley appeared as the chief speaker of the bishops, and was for the Episcopa- lians what Baxter was for the Covenanters. Stough- ton puts Morley next to Sheldon, yet acknowledges that the latter acted chiefly as adviser, " taking little share in the viva-voce discussions," whUe Morley appeared constantly as leader in the debates (i, 163), In 1662 bishop Morley was made incumbent of the deaner\- of the royal chapel, and shonly after was transferred from the see of Worcester to that of Winchester. In 1673, when the royalists made a desperate attempt to intro- duce severe measures against the Nonconformists, bish- op Morley figured prominently in the effort, and thus brought reproach upon himself for intolerance and stub- bornness. He especially favored the modification of the " Test Act" in such a manner that it became necessary for every English subject to be faithful to " the Protes- tant religion as established by law in the Church of England," Yet Morley "s position at this time may be satisfactorily explained. •• His main policy was to pro- tect the Establishment, on the basis of the Act of Uni- formity, against papists on the one hard and dissenters on the other. He shared in the alarm which conver- sions to Rome and the encroachments of that Church inspired throughout England at the time; and partly from that cause he was induced to support the bill, . , . thinking by the new oath, which established the Church, to prevent an invasion by the enemy. , . . Strength was wasted by internecine warfare at a moment when Episcopalians and Presbyterians stood before a com- mon foe. It was the story of the Crusaders repeat- ed. Why not gather the forces of the Chiu-ch and of the sects, and concentrate them upon the great enemy of the country- "s liberty and peace ? Such impressions, under the circumstances, were not imnatural in the mind of a man like Morley" (Stoughton, i, 439, 440). In his old age ilorley is reputed to have become more tolerant again, for it is related that he stopped proceedings against an ejected minister, and invited him to dinner, endeavoring to soften down the terms of conformity ; but, better still, it is said that in Morley 's last days he drank to an intermeddling country mayor in a cup of Canary, advising him to let dissenters live in quiet, "in many of whom, he was satisfied, there was the fear of God" — and he thought they were "not likely to be gained by rigor or severity," The bishop died in 1684, Burnet says that he •■ was in many respects a verj- emi- nent man, very zealous against popery, and also very zealous against dissent : considerably learned, with great , vivacity of thought ; soon provoked, and with little master}^ over his temper" (i, 590), His zeal against the doctrines of poperj- is apparent in his ■wTitings, and not less so his zeal against dissent ; in connection with his opposition to both, he avows the doctrine of passive obedience, declaring in terms the most unequivocal '• the best and safest way for prince, state, and people is to profess, protect, cherish, and allow of that religion, and that only, which allows of no rising up against or resisting sovereign power — no, not in its own defence, nor upon any other account whatsoever" (Morley's Treatises, sermon before the king, p. 38), Indeed, he maintains, again and again, the principle of intolerance in the government of the Church, and the principle of despotism in the government of the State : holding the king to be sole sovereign, while Parliament is only a concurring power in making laws, and the bishops the only legitimate ecclesiastical riders. Bishop ilorley was a veri- generous man, and freely expended his in- come for the good of his benefices. He was a benefac- tor to Oxford University by granting Christ Church I £100 per annum, and by establishing sevend prizes at I Pembroke and other colleges. He spent much money