taking in relatives in general. The first notice of any distinction being accorded to this James occurs in Acts xii. 17. Peter, after his miraculous escape from prison, says, at the house of the mother of John, Mark, "Go, show these things to James, and to the brethren."

The next instance in the order of time is probably the Apostle Paul's visit to Jerusalem, already referred to. "I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the Apostles saw I none save James, the Lord's brother." (Gal. i. 18, 19.) He came to see Peter, thinking, it would appear, to confer with Peter only. When a man has been long absent from a place, his views are formed according to the past. Paul came to see the late leader in the Church, not knowing of any change, and he saw also the present one.

In the Council at Jerusalem, where the questions at issue between the Jewish and Gentile believers were discussed, James was evidently the presiding Apostle. After the question had been canvassed, Peter, as the one who had been first called to evangelize the Gentiles, showed that God had made no difference between them and the Jews. And Barnabas and Paul declared what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. And when all were silent, "James answered, saying, Men, brethren, hearken unto me;" and after showing that God's grace manifested to the Gentiles was according to His purpose as made known by the Prophets, he proceeds, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to declare judgment. "Wherefore my sentence is"-Peter, in the whole course of his Apostleship, is not reported to have said so much even as this "my sentence is, that we trouble not them which among the Gentiles are turned to God." So decidedly is James the presiding Apostle of the assembly. We may here state that the last mention made of Peter in the Acts of the Apostles is in the account of this Council, Acts xv.

"And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And the day following, Paul went in with us unto James and all the elders were present." (Acts xxi. 17, 18.) This is the last recorded visit of St. Paul to Jerusalem.

"For before that certain came from James, he [Peter] did eat with the Gentiles." (Gal. ii. 12.) Coming from Jerusalem is called coming from James.

These passages plainly indicate that James was at this time the central person in the Church at Jerusalem.

When the disciples of Jerusalem were scattered abroad through the persecution that arose out of the case of Stephen, the Apostles remained in the city. From thence they administered the affairs of the Church, sending Peter and John to Samaria (viii. 14), and Barnabas to Antioch (xi. 22). But from

Church history, and more especially from the words of our blessed Lord, "Ye shall be witnesses unto Me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth," we may infer that there would be at some seasons only a small minority of the Apostles at Jerusalem. Hence we see the necessity that a representative man should remain at home, and be more especially identified with matters of administration. The narrative leads us to the conclusion that there was such a man, and that this man was not Peter, but James.

God prepares and selects His own agencies, and for Peter's varied gifts He assigned an ample sphere in the ministry of the circumcision; while for the more direct personal identification with the administration of the Church, He chose one whom we may believe He had endorsed with a specifically judicial mind. At the same time, there was no visible or universal head of the Church. No such thing was thought of. St. Paul had the care of the Churches which he had planted, and Antioch as well as Jerusalem was a centre of administration.

It is most interesting to find the enumeration of the names adjusted to this new state of things. James, Cephas, and John." (Gal. ii. 9.) It was formerly Peter, James, and John, and the James who now stands before Peter was seldom even mentioned.

How fatal is all this to the claim of Papal supremacy on the ground of the alleged supremacy of Peter. God, who foreknew all these pretensions, has abundantly furnished, in His holy word, the means of their refutation. At the same time our case against Rome is strengthened by the careful study of all that is written in the Word concerning the Apostle Peter, and by the frank and full admission of the priority accorded to him.

AN EVENING WITH THE “DELEGATES" OF THE
"LABOURERS' UNION."

PROBABLY SO many of my brethren, the country clergy, have been for months past deeply affected by the recent efforts on the part of the agricultural labourers to improve their position, that it may not be without interest to furnish them with my experience. My parish is a singularly secluded one. But one road passes (at all directly) through it, entering it solely for that purpose. It is in the shape of an irregular curve, of which another way, running just outside the boundary, forms a sort of chord. The few wayfarers upon it are impeded, in spite of

recent Acts of Parliament, by no fewer than three gates within a quarter of a mile. The sea lies to the south; our first line of separation from it being a steep and rugged bank of shingle, about two hundred yards across, within which runs a navigable river. The strength of the tide up and down this is so great, the position of the sand-banks at its mouth so uncertain, and the direction of its rapid currents consequently so variable, as to make crossing it far from pleasant, save under good guidance, and in very calm weather. Not many years back the coast presented remarkable facilities for smuggling, of which its somewhat amphibious population were not slow to avail themselves, as some of the (more aged) small farmers of the neighbourhood have half boastfully avowed to me to have been their own practice. It may be to this cause that the bold and self-reliant character of the people, and their unusually, for the eastern counties, independent bearing, is due. But it exists, and shows itself in the fact that there are few lads in my own parish who have not been at least one fishing voyage, or who hesitate to undertake another on the very first hint from their employers that they can just now be spared. The young girls, too, emulate their brothers, by going out to service as nurse girls," or "maids of all work," at an unusually early age. There is little poverty among the people, and none of an abject character, which, taken in connexion with the mental peculiarities before alluded to, may account for the early success achieved by the "Labourers' Union" amongst us, it being a well-known fact that the worst off labourers are, as a rule, by no means the most ready to complain of their lot, or to take steps for its amelioration.

"In vain would Liberty invoke

The spirit to its bondage broke,

Or raise the neck that courts the yoke.”

66

The paid emissaries of the Labourers' Union-" delegates" is, I believe, their official name-began, some time since, to operate upon us from without, by raising the rate of wages throughout the neighbourhood, a movement which our employers of labour were compelled to follow. But while addressing meetings in other parishes, to which, of course, many of our people went, the "delegates" scarcely showed their faces within our bounds. Perhaps we owed this exemption to our out-of-the-way local position; perhaps, too, in a measure, to the fact that our principal farmer-a man of property and education, moreover a sensible and fluent speaker-had made no secret of his intention to be present at any meeting that might be called, and not to allow the "delegates" to have it all their own way. All that he might have said would, of course, have

the more weight, from his being well known in the neighbourhood as a man of kind and gentle bearing, and of undoubted liberality in his money dealings with his labourers. He had left the parish, and retired from business altogether, a little before the date at which my story properly commences.

One day, as I passed the village shoemaker's shop, my eye was caught by an affiche, stating that a meeting of the Labourers' Union will be held at on November at 7 o'clock in the evening. The meeting will be addressed by Mr. and Mr.

"May any one attend ?" I inquired of the shoemaker. "Oh! yes, sir; it's a public meeting." Accordingly, a few minutes before the time named, I seated myself on a bench in the long (or club) room of our village public-house, which soon after began to fill. No one but myself above the rank of a small farmer was present at any time during the evening. Occupiers of considerable tracts of land had attended meetings in other places; but I have not heard of any clergyman, except myself, having appeared on a similar occasion, save in a single instance, where one deemed it, as I had done, his duty to be present and watch the proceedings. From the manner in which he was spoken of, from the things, which in all probability "he knew not," "laid to his charge," I am led to believe, as one might have concluded, à priori, that the room of a clergyman, or of any other educated person unconnected with the "Labourers' Union," would be, at the very least, as acceptable as his company.

It has been the policy and practice of the "Union" in this neighbourhood, and probably elsewhere, to take temporarily into their employment some malcontent labourer, possessing and • loving to display "the gift of the gab;" the sight of whose face, and the sound of whose voice, being more or less familiar to those around, may tend to take off the feeling of strangeness, so apt to ripen in rural minds, unless checked, into suspicion and distrust. An individual of this class, not named in the advertisement of the meeting, came up to me not long before the proceedings commenced, and accosting me with a "Mr. I presume," essayed to go through what Hajji Baba calls "the shake-hand " ceremony with me, after introducing himself as "Mr. B——, of S—. This honour I quietly evaded; not, however, I hope, from pride, which I scarcely think to be my besetting sin.

It will be readily conceived, that in the selection of coadjutors such as Mr. B., the delegates of the Union, even if they possess discrimination of character, can scarcely find scope for its exercise, but are obliged to take what they can get.

Most of those present at the meeting were already ac

quainted with Mr. B. Some of them knew him as having been lately rejected as an aspirant for employment by the Wesleyans in the capacity of a local preacher. Yet he was formally introduced to the meeting; and while doing so, Mr. C., the "delegate," did not forget to mention, as recommending him to special notice and favour, a circumstance which one unacquainted with the state of affairs might have expected to be kept in the back-ground, viz., that he had lately "got the sack," i. e., had been paid off, or dismissed from his employment. And in naming this circumstance, without adding any explanation whatever, Mr. C. struck the key-note of the evening's proceedings, and, it is to be feared, of those of the "Labourers' Union" in general. Certainly, on this occasion, it was taken for granted, as being too obvious to need to be stated, far less proved, that when any difference took place between a farmer and a labourer, the latter must invariably be in the right. No Chairman was appointed; but the omission was not felt, as no resolution was moved, nor any vote taken; nor was there, I am thankful to say, any disorderly conduct to repress on the part of those assembled. I noticed that mugs of beer were occasionally handed about, but everyone in in the room seemed to be perfectly sober. Indeed, the tone of the meeting must have been almost too quiet for its conveners and their allies. The most telling hits of the speakers fell apparently dead on those addressed, while the persevering attempts of four or five claqueurs, as I believe they are called in a French theatre, either to get up a shout of applause by suggesting "Cheer! Cheer!" or to induce the audience to join in the chorus of a song about "Persevere unto the right," signally failed of effect. But I am leaving Mr. B. on his legs. He commenced his speech, of which I can only give the substance, not having taken notes on the spot, by extolling the "Union," and the independence which it conferred on the individual labourer, citing his own case as an example, but without giving any particulars of the grounds of his dismissal. He did not say, but he left his hearers at liberty to infer, that "relief afforded from the funds, and no questions asked," was what he had got, and was just the thing generally needed, and which the "Union" would secure to them. He went on to draw a very moving picture of the cruel hardships endured by the poor, who often, he said, went to work with nothing but bread and onions to eat, and were sometimes so pressed by hunger as to "take peas from the stack." The woes of the "poor," and the miseries of" poverty," were dwelt upon with painful iteration, and contrasted very strongly, but in an unintentionally ludicrous way, with the delightful position enjoyed, and the luxuries indulged in, by farmers, landowners, and