This examination of the testimonials is begun in the first or main part of Milton’s Pro Se Defensio; but, as Morus had only entered on his testimonials in the Fides Publica as originally published, and presented most of them in his Supplementum to that book, so Milton prolongs this branch of his criticism into an appendix entitled separately Authoris ad Aleasandri Mori Supplementum Responsio ("The Author’s Answer to Alexander More’s Supplement.”) Prom the first sentences of this Appendix we learn that the preceding part of Milton’s book had been written two months before the Supplementum had come into his hands.

Morus’s published Testimonials divide themselves chronologically, it may have been observed, into three sets—­(1) those given him at Geneva early in the year 1648, and brought by him into Holland on his removal thither, (2) those given him at Middleburg between Nov. 1649 and Aug. 1652, and (3) the three given him at Amsterdam in July 1654, after Milton’s Defensio Secunda had appeared, and in contradiction of statements made in that book.—­On the Genevese set of Testimonials, including that from the venerable Diodati, Milton’s criticism, in substance, is that they were vitiated by their date.  They had been given, or obtained by hard begging, not perhaps before the Pelletta scandal had been heard of, but before it had been sufficiently notorious, and while it still seemed credible to many that Morus was innocent, and others were good-naturedly willing to stop the investigation by speeding him off to another scene, Theodore Tronchin, pastor and Professor of Theology, and Mermilliod and Pittet, two other pastors, had been the first movers, among the Genevese clergy, for an inquiry into Morus’s conduct; the elder Spanheim had, as Milton believed, been one of those that even then would have nothing to do with the Testimonials; the aged Diodati had then for some time ceased to attend the meetings of his brethren, and might not know all.  But, in any case, nearly a year had elapsed between the date of the last of those Genevese Testimonials which Morus had published and Morus’s actual departure from Geneva.  During that interval there had been a progress of Genevese opinion on the subject of his character and conduct, and he had been furnished with fresh papers in the nature of farewell Testimonials.  Morus had suppressed those.  Would he venture to produce them?—­On the Middleburg Testimonials the criticism is that they do not matter much one way or another, but that they show Morus on the whole to have soon been found a troublesome person in Holland also, some business about whom was always coming up in the Walloon Synods.  In Middleburg too there had been a progress of opinion about him with farther experience.  His co-pastor there.  M. Jean Long, who had been his firm friend for a while, and had signed some of the testimonials, was now understood to speak of him with absolute detestation.