Who was the real author of the book for which Morus had been so dreadfully punished, and what was the real amount of Morus's responsibility in it?
That Milton's original belief on this subject had been shaken has been already evident.

He had written his _Defensio Secunda_, in firm reliance on the universal report that Morus was the one proper author of the _Regii Sanguinis Clamor_, or that it had been concocted between him and Salmasius; and, though Morus's denial of the authorship had been formally conveyed to him before the _Defensio Secunda_ left the press, he had let it go forth as it was, in the conviction that he was still not wrong in the main.

The more express and reiterated denials of Morus in the _Fides Publica_, however, with the references there to another person as the real author, though Morus was not at liberty to divulge his name, had produced an effect.

The authorship of the _Regii Sanguinis Clamor_ was then indeed a secondary question, inasmuch as in the _Fides Publica_ Morus had interposed himself personally,--not only in self-defence, but also for counter-attack on Milton.

Still, as the _Fides Publica_ would never have been written had not Milton assumed Morus to be the author of the _Regii Sanguinis Clamor_ and dragged him before the world solely on that account, Milton had necessarily, in replying to the _Fides Publica_, adverted to the secondary question.