This duty involves the others of taking care that we have goodness to show, and that we do not make our goodness repulsive by our additions to it.  There are good people who comfort themselves when men dislike them, or scoff at them, by thinking that their religion is the cause, when it is only their own roughness and harshness of character.  It is not enough that we present an austere and repellent virtue; the fair food should be set on a fair platter.  This duty is especially owing to our enemies.  They are our keenest critics.  They watch for our halting.  The thought of their hostile scrutiny should ever stimulate us, and the consciousness that Argus-eyes are watching us, with a keenness sharpened by dislike, should lead us not only to vigilance over our own steps, but also to the prayer, ’Lead me in a plain path, because of those who watch me.’  To ’provide things honest in the sight of all men’ is a possible way of disarming some hostility, conciliating some prejudice, and commending to some hearts the Lord whom we seek to imitate.

II.  Be sure that, if there is to be enmity, it is all on one side.

‘As much as in you lieth, be at peace with all.’  These words are, I think, unduly limited when they are supposed to imply that there are circumstances in which a Christian has a right to be at strife.  As if they meant:  Be peaceable as far as you can; but if it be impossible, then quarrel.  The real meaning goes far deeper than that.  ’It takes two to make a quarrel,’ says the old proverb; it takes two to make peace also, does it not?  We cannot determine whether our relations with men will be peaceful or no; we are only answerable for our part, and for that we are answerable.  ‘As much as lieth in you’ is the explanation of ‘if it be possible.’  Your part is to be at peace; it is not your part up to a certain point and no further, but always, and in all circumstances, it is your part.  It may not be possible to be at peace with all men; there may be some who will quarrel with you.  You are not to blame for that, but their part and yours are separate, and your part is the same whatever they do.  Be you at peace with all men whether they are at peace with you or not.  Don’t you quarrel with them even if they will quarrel with you.  That seems to me to be plainly the meaning of the words.  It would be contrary to the tenor of the context and the teaching of the New Testament to suppose that here we had that favourite principle, ’There is a point beyond which forbearance cannot go,’ where it becomes right to cherish hostile sentiments or to try to injure a man.  If there be such a point, it is very remarkable that there is no attempt made in the New Testament to define it.  The nearest approach to such definition is ‘till seventy times seven,’ the two perfect numbers multiplied into themselves.  So I think that this injunction absolutely prescribes persistent, patient peacefulness, and absolutely proscribes our taking up the position of antagonism, and under no circumstances meeting hate with hate.  It does not follow that there is never to be opposition.  It may be necessary for the good of the opponent himself, and for the good of society, that he should be hindered in his actions of hostility, but there is never to be bitterness; and we must take care that none of the devil’s leaven mingles with our zeal against evil.