The men to whom he was to prove that Jesus was the Christ,and risen again from the dead,were also Jews,and did believe already that they were the word of God.Hereupon,as it is in the fourth verse some of them believed,and,as it is in the fifth verse,some believed not.
What was the reason,when they all believed the Scripture,that they did not all believe alike,but that some approved,others disapproved,the interpretation of St.Paul that cited them,and every one interpreted them to himself?It was this:St.Paul came to them without any legal commission,and in the manner of one that would not command,but persuade;which he must needs do,either by miracles,as Moses did to the Israelites in Egypt,that they might see his authority in God's works;or by reasoning from the already received Scripture,that they might see the truth of his doctrine in God's word.But whosoever persuadeth by reasoning from principles written maketh him to whom he speaketh judge;both of the meaning of those principles and also of the force of his inferences upon them.If these Jews of Thessalonica were not,who else was the judge of what St.Paul alleged out of Scripture?If St.Paul,what needed he to quote any places to prove his doctrine?It had been enough to have said,"I find it so in Scripture;that is to say,in your laws,of which I am interpreter,as sent by Christ."The interpreter therefore of the Scripture,to whose interpretation the Jews of Thessalonica were bound to stand,could be none:every one might believe or not believe,according as the allegations seemed to himself to be agreeable or not agreeable to the meaning of the places alleged.And generally in all cases of the world he that pretendeth any proof maketh judge of his proof him to whom he addresseth his speech.And as to the case of the Jews in particular,they were bound by express words to receive the determination of all hard questions from the priests and judges of Israel for the time being.But this is to be understood of the Jews that were yet unconverted.
For the conversion of the Gentiles,there was no use of alleging the Scriptures,which they believed not.The Apostles therefore laboured by reason to confute their idolatry;and that done,to persuade them to the faith of Christ by their testimony of his life and resurrection.So that there could not yet be any controversy concerning the authority to interpret Scripture;seeing no man was obliged,during his infidelity,to follow any man's interpretation of any Scripture except his sovereign's interpretation of the laws of his country.
Let us now consider the conversion itself,and see what there was therein that could be cause of such an obligation.Men were converted to no other thing than to the belief of that which the Apostles preached:and the Apostles preached nothing but that Jesus was the Christ,that is to say,the King that was to save them and reign over them eternally in the world to come;and consequently that he was not dead,but risen again from the dead,and gone up into heaven,and should come again one day to judge the world (which also should rise again to be judged),and reward every man according to his works.None of them preached that himself,or any other Apostle,was such an interpreter of the Scripture as all that became Christians ought to take their interpretation for law.For to interpret the laws is part of the administration of a present kingdom,which the Apostles had not.They prayed then,and all other pastors since,"Let thy kingdom come";and exhorted their converts to obey their then ethnic princes.The New Testament was not yet published in one body.Every of the evangelists was interpreter of his own gospel,and every Apostle of his own epistle;and of the Old Testament our Saviour himself saith to the Jews,"Search the Scriptures;for in them ye think to have eternal life,and they are they that testify of me."If he had not meant they should interpret them,he would not have bidden them take thence the proof of his being the Christ:he would either have interpreted them himself,or referred them to the interpretation of the priests.
When a difficulty arose,the Apostles and elders of the Church assembled themselves together,and determined what should be preached and taught,and how they should interpret the Scriptures to the people,but took not from the people the liberty to read and interpret them to themselves.The Apostles sent diverse letters to the Churches,and other writings for their instruction;which had been in vain if they had not allowed them to interpret,that is,to consider the meaning of them.And as it was in the Apostles'time,it must be till such time as there should be pastors that could authorize an interpreter whose interpretation should generally be stood to:but that could not be till kings were pastors,or pastors kings.
There be two senses wherein a writing may be said to be canonical:for canon signifieth a rule;and a rule is a precept by which a man is guided and directed in any action whatsoever.Such precepts,though given by a teacher to his disciple,or a counsellor to his friend,without power to compel him to observe them,are nevertheless canons,because they are rules.But when they are given by one whom he that receiveth them is bound to obey,then are those canons not only rules,but laws:the question therefore here is of the power to make the Scriptures,which are the rules of Christian faith,laws.