V. 16.— For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Men swear by the greater, by some one superior to themselves; and, when other evidence cannot be obtained, an oath settles the matter. Israel were commanded to swear by the name of the Lord, Deuteronomy 6:13, so that the strife is brought to an end. The example of God, with the Apostle’ s observation, decides the question of the lawfulness of oaths, which has been denied. Can we for a moment suppose that God, in His transactions with men, should by His own example sanction what is unlawful, and direct the Apostle to speak of an oath as putting an end to strife? Strife arises now as formerly, and an oath for confirmation is as necessary now as it was before. There are two passages in the New Testament which are alleged as a proof of the unlawfulness of oaths. In the sermon on the mount, the Lord says, “ Swear not at all;” but it is more evident, from the connexion, that the Lord there condemns the confirmation of a vow by an oath. “ Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perforin unto the Lord thy vows. [There is no reference here to transactions between men.] But I say unto you, Swear not at all.” We have an example of a vow without an oath in the history of Jacob at Bethel, Genesis 28:20-22. The Apostle James likewise forbids swearing, chap. 5:12; but it is evident, from the connexion, that he is also treating of vows. Not only were oaths regulated by the Jewish law, but the Lord Himself, when questioned by the high priest, gave no answer till, put upon His oath, He heard “the voice of swearing." And not only so, but the Apostle Paul frequently appeals to God for the truth of what he asserts; so that none of the followers of Jesus ought to hesitate, on proper occasions, to confirm their testimony by an oath.