Almost to a tittle, it was.  That Morus was the editor of the book, the corrector of the press, and the active agent in the circulation of early copies, may be taken as established by the documentary proofs furnished by Milton, and is corroborated by independent evidence known to ourselves long ago (Vol.  IV. pp. 459-465).  But was he also partially the author?  Here too Milton’s evidence may be taken as conclusive, so far as respects the Dedicatory Epistle to Charles II.  That Epistle, with its enormous praises of Salmasius, and its extremely malignant notice of Milton, was undoubtedly by Morus, for copies of it signed by himself were still extant.  So far, therefore, Milton was right in saying that Morus’s denial of the authorship of the Regii Sanguinis Clamor was an equivocation, resting on a tacit distinction between the body of the book and the additional or editorial matter.  In several passages Morus himself had betrayed this equivocation, but in none so remarkably as in a sentence to the peculiar phrasing of which we called attention in quoting it (ante p. 159).  Protesting that he had not so much as known the fact of Milton’s blindness at the time of the publication of the Regii Sanguinis Clamor, and therefore could not have been guilty of the heartless allusion to it in the Dedicatory Epistle, he there said, “If anything occurred to me that might seem to look that way, I referred to the mind,”—­a phrase which it is difficult to construe otherwise than as an admission that he had written the Dedicatory Epistle, but had employed the familiar quotation there ("monstrum horrendum, informe, ingens, cui lumen ademptum”) only metaphorically.  All in all, then, the authorship of the Dedicatory Epistle, as well as the editorship and adoption of the whole anonymous book, is fastened upon Morus.  With this amount of responsibility fastened upon him, however, Morus must be dismissed, and another person brought to the bar.  He was the Rev. DR. PETER DU MOULIN the younger.

The Du Moulins were a French family, well known in England.  The father, Dr. Peter Du Moulin the elder (called Molinaeus in Latin), was a French Protestant theologian of great celebrity.  He had resided for a good while in England in the reign of James I., officiating as French minister in London, and in much credit with the King and others; but, on the death of James, he had returned to France.  At our present date he was still alive at the age of eighty-seven, and still not so much out of the world but that people in different countries continued to think of him as a contemporary and to quote his writings.  There are references to him, far from disrespectful, in one of Milton’s Anti-Episcopal Pamphlets in reply to Bishop Hall.[1] Two of his sons, both born in France, had settled permanently in England, and had become passionately interested in English public affairs, though in very different directions.—­The younger of these, LEWIS DU MOULIN, born 1606, having