slation, almost to the neglect of the second
part, and, as we have seen, most of these translations appeared before
the end of 1668. Now the tract was not known in Massachusetts until
discovered by the inquest on printers in September, and a S. G. or
Samuel Green edition could hardly have come from the press before
October, even if not delayed by the proceedings against Johnson. Yet on
die title-page of the Dutch translation issued at Rotterdam in 1668, the
printer states at length that it is from a copy from London, by S. G.
for Allen Banks and Charles Harper, in the Lily near Cripplegate Church,
and in his note "To the Reader" he expressly repeats that he obtained
a copy of the work from London, in order to correct a faulty issue by
another Dutch printer.

If S. G. was Samuel Green, we must suppose that one of his Cambridge
issues was shipped to Rotterdam in time to [21]be translated and
reprinted before the end of the year. In point of time the thing could
be done, but in point of probability it was impossible. Apart from his
own statement, there were a thousand to one chances in favor of the
Dutch printer obtaining the pamphlet from London; there were ten
thousand chances to one against his getting it from Massachusetts. I
reject the supposition that this was a Cambridge imprint for that reason
alone.

Additional evidence hostile to the claim may be adduced. The copy of the
first tract in the British Museum is the S. G. for Banks and Harper.{1}

1 It is erroneously described as "an abridgment."

No other London imprint is to be found there or in the larger libraries
of England. Of the three other copies located, that sold at audion (the
White Kennett copy) and that in the Massachusetts Historical Society
came direct from England, and the actual provenance of the copy in the
New York Historical Society is not known. It belonged to Rufus King,
long United States minister near the court of St James's, and is bound
with other tracts under a general title of "Topographical Collection,
Vol. I." The binding, Mr. Kelby tells me, is American. There is no mark
to show when or where King obtained the pamphlet, and the Society
did not receive it until 1906. That Rufus King belongs as much to
Massachusetts as to New York is too slight a foundation on which to
erect a claim that this particular tract was of Massachusetts origin.

In no case, therefore, can an American setting to any one of the four
known copies of the