al duty on my people
here, and I did it as plainly as I could. Next day one of my young men,
who is now a devoted and honoured elder, came to me and told me that he
had done that morning what his conscience yesterday told him in the
church to do. He had gone to a neighbour's place of business, had asked
for an interview, and had begged his neighbour's pardon. I am sure
neither of those two men have forgotten that moment, and the thought of
it has often since nerved me to speak plainly about some of their most
unwelcome duties to my people. Shame, no doubt, pulled back my noble
friend's hand when it was on the office bell, but, like Faithful in the
text, he shook him out of his company and went in. I spoke of the
remarkable justice of the newspaper press in the opening of these
remarks. And it so happens that, as I lay down my pen to rest my hand
after writing this sentence and lift a London evening paper, I read this
editorial note, set within the well-known brackets at the end of an
indignant and expostulatory letter: ['Our correspondent's complaint is
just. The paragraph imputing bad motives should not have been
admitted.'] I have no doubt that editor felt some shame as he handed
that apologetic note to the printer. But not to speak of any other
recognition and recompense, he has the recompense of the recognition of
all honourable-minded men who have read that honourable admission and
apology.

Shame was quite right in his scoff about restitution also. For
restitution rings like a trumpet tone through the whole of the law of
Moses, and then the New Testament republishes that law if only in the
exquisite story of Zaccheus. And, indeed, take it altogether, I do not
know where to find in the same space a finer vindication of Puritan
pulpit ethics than just in this taunting and terrifying attack on
Faithful. There is no better test of true religion both as it is
preached and practised than just to ask for and to grant forgiveness, and
to offer and accept restitution. Now, does your public and private life
defend and adorn your minister's pulpit in these two so practical
matters? Could your minister point to you as a proof of the ethics of
evangelical teaching? Can any one in this city speak up in defence of
your church and thus protest: 'Say what you like about that church and
its ministers, all I can say is, that its members know how to make an
apology; as, also, how to pay back with interest what they at