part17-第1章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！






　　　　　　　　CHRISTIANITY　AND　THE　COMMON　LAW




　　　　　　　　_To　Dr。　Thomas　Cooper_

　　　　　　　　_Monticello；　February　10；　1814_




　　　　　　　　DEAR　SIR；　　In　my　letter　of　January　16；　I　promised　you　a

sample　from　my　common…place　book；　of　the　pious　disposition　of　the

English　judges；　to　connive　at　the　frauds　of　the　clergy；　a　disposition

which　has　even　rendered　them　faithful　allies　in　practice。　　When　I　was

a　student　of　the　law；　now　half　a　century　ago；　after　getting　through

Coke　Littleton；　whose　matter　cannot　be　abridged；　I　was　in　the　habit

of　abridging　and　common…placing　what　I　read　meriting　it；　and　of

sometimes　mixing　my　own　reflections　on　the　subject。　　I　now　enclose

you　the　extract　from　these　entries　which　I　promised。　　They　were

written　at　a　time　of　life　when　I　was　bold　in　the　pursuit　of

knowledge；　never　fearing　to　follow　truth　and　reason　to　whatever

results　they　led；　and　bearding　every　authority　which　stood　in　their

way。　　This　must　be　the　apology；　if　you　find　the　conclusions　bolder

than　historical　facts　and　principles　will　warrant。　　Accept　with　them

the　assurances　of　my　great　esteem　and　respect。

　

　　　　　　　　_Common…place　Book。_

　　　　　　　　873。　In　Quare　imp。　in　C。　B。　34；　H。　6；　fo。　38；　the　def。　Br。　of

Lincoln　pleads　that　the　church　of　the　pl。　became　void　by　the　death　of

the　incumbent；　that　the　pl。　and　J。　S。　each　pretending　a　right；

presented　two　several　clerks；　that　the　church　being　thus　rendered

litigious；　he　was　not　obliged；　by　the　_Ecclesiastical　law_　to　admit

either；　until　an　inquisition　de　jure　patronatus；　in　the

ecclesiastical　court：　that；　by　the　same　law；　this　inquisition　was　to

be　at　the　suit　of　either　claimant；　and　was　not　_ex…officio_　to　be

instituted　by　the　bishop；　and　at　his　proper　costs；　that　neither　party

had　desired　such　an　inquisition；　that　six　months　passed　whereon　it

belonged　to　him　of　right　to　present　as　on　a　lapse；　which　he　had　done。

The　pl。　demurred。　　A　question　was；　How　far　the　_Ecclesiastical　law_

was　to　be　respected　in　this　matter　by　the　common　law　court？　and

Prisot　C。　3；　in　the　course　of　his　argument　uses　this　expression；　〃A

tiels　leis　que　ils　de　seint　eglise　ont　en　_ancien　scripture_；　covient

a　nous　a　donner　credence；　car　ces　common　ley　sur　quel　touts　manners

leis　sont　fondes：　et　auxy；　sin；　nous　sumus　obliges　de　conustre　nostre

ley；　et；　sin；　si　poit　apperer　or　a　nous　que　lievesque　ad　fait　comme

un　ordinary　fera　en　tiel　cas；　adong　nous　devons　ces　adjuger　bon

autrement　nemy；〃　&c。　　It　does　not　appear　that　judgment　was　given。　Y。

B。　ubi　supra。　S。　C。　Fitzh。　abr。　Qu。　imp。　89。　Bro。　abr。　Qu。　imp。　12。

Finch　mistakes　this　in　the　following　manner：　〃To　such　laws　of　the

church　as　have　warrant　in　_Holy　Scripture_；　our　law　giveth　credence；〃

and　cites　the　above　case；　and　the　words　of　Prisot　on　the　margin。

Finch's　law。　B。　1；　ch。　3；　published　1613。　　Here　we　find　〃ancien

scripture〃　converted　into　〃Holy　Scripture；〃　whereas　it　can　only　mean

the　_ancient　written_　laws　of　the　church。　　It　cannot　mean　the

Scriptures；　1；　because　the　〃ancien　scripture〃　must　then　be　understood

to　mean　the　〃Old　Testament〃　or　Bible；　in　opposition　to　the　〃New

Testament；〃　and　to　the　exclusion　of　that；　which　would　be　absurd　and

contrary　to　the　wish　of　those　｜P1323｜p1　who　cite　this　passage　to

prove　that　the　Scriptures；　or　Christianity；　is　a　part　of　the　common

law。　　2。　Because　Prisot　says；　〃Ceo　＇est＇　common　ley；　sur　quel　touts

manners　leis　sont　fondes。〃　Now；　it　is　true　that　the　ecclesiastical

law；　so　far　as　admitted　in　England；　derives　its　authority　from　the

common　law。　　But　it　would　not　be　true　that　the　Scriptures　so　derive

their　authority。　　3。　The　whole　case　and　arguments　show　that　the

question　was　how　far　the　Ecclesiastical　law　in　general　should　be

respected　in　a　common　law　court。　　And　in　Bro。　abr。　of　this　case；

Littleton　says；　〃Les　juges　del　common　ley　prendra　conusans　quid　est

_lax　ecclesiae_；　vel　admiralitatis；　et　trujus　modi。〃　4。　Because　the

particular　part　of　the　Ecclesiastical　law　then　in　question；　to　wit；

the　right　of　the　patron　to　present　to　his　advowson；　was　not　founded

on　the　law　of　God；　but　subject　to　the　modification　of　the　lawgiver；

and　so　could　not　introduce　any　such　general　position　as　Finch

pretends。　　Yet　Wingate　＇in　1658＇　thinks　proper　to　erect　this　false

quotation　into　a　maxim　of　the　common　law；　expressing　it　in　the　very

words　of　Finch；　but　citing　Prisot；　wing。　max。　　3。　Next　comes

Sheppard；　＇in　1675；＇　who　states　it　in　the　same　words　of　Finch；　and

quotes　the　Year…Book；　Finch　and　Wingate。　　3。　Shepp。　abr。　tit。

Religion。　　In　the　case　of　the　King　_v_。　Taylor；　Sir　Matthew　Hale　lays

it　down　in　these　words；　〃Christianity　is　parcel　of　the　laws　of

England。〃　1　Ventr。　293；　3　Keb。　607。　　But　he　quotes　no　authority；

resting　it　on　his　own；　which　was　good　in　all　cases　in　which　his　mind

received　no　bias　from　his　bigotry；　his　superstitions；　his　visions

above　sorceries；　demons；　&c。　　The　power　of　these　over　him　is

exemplified　in　his　hanging　of　the　witches。　　So　strong　was　this

doctrine　become　in　1728；　by　additions　and　repetitions　from　one

another；　that　in　the　case　of　the　King　_v_。　Woolston；　the　court　would

not　suffer　it　to　be　debated；　whether　to　write　against　Christianity

was　punishable　in　the　temporal　courts　at　common　law；　saying　it　had

been　so　settled　in　Taylor's　case；　ante　2；　stra。　834；　therefore；　Wood；

in　his　Institute；　lays　it　down　that　all　blasphemy　and　profaneness　are

offences　by　the　_common　law_；　and　cites　Strange　ubi　supra。　Wood　409。

And　Blackstone　＇about　1763＇　repeats；　in　the　words　of　Sir　Matthew

Hale；　that　〃Christianity　is　part　of　the　laws　of　England；〃　citing

Ventris　and　Strange　ubi　supra。　4。　Blackst。　59。　　Lord　Mansfield

qualifies　it　a　little　by　saying　that　〃The　essential　｜P1324｜p1

principles　of　revealed　religion　are　part　of　the　common　law。〃　In　the

case　of　the　Chamberlain　of　London　_v_。　Evans；　1767。　　But　he　cities　no

authority；　and　leaves　us　at　our　peril　to　find　out　what；　in　the

opinion　of　the　judge；　and　according　to　the　measure　of　his　foot　or　his

faith；　are　those　essential　principles　of　revealed　religion　obligatory

on　us　as　a　part　of　the　common　law。




　　　　　　　　Thus　we　find　this　string　of　authorities；　when　examined　to　the

beginning；　all　hanging　on　the　same　hook；　a　perverted　expression　of

Prisot's；　or　on　one　another；　or　nobody。　　Thus　Finch　quotes　Prisot；

Wingate　also；　Sheppard　quotes　Prisot；　Finch　and　Wingate；　Hale　cites

nobody；　the　court　in　Woolston's　case　cite　Hale；　Wood　cites　Woolston's

case；　Blackstone　that　and　Hale；　and　Lord　Mansfield；　like　Hale；

ventures　it　on　his　own　authority。　　In　the　earlier　ages　of　the　law；　as

in　the　year…books；　for　instance；　we　do　not　expect　much　recurrence　to

authorities　by　the　judges；　because　in　those　days　there　were　few　or

none　such　made　public。　　But　in　latter　times　we　take　no　judge's　word

for　what　the　law　is；　further　than　he　is　warranted　by　the　authorities

he　appeals　to。　　His　decision　may　bind　the　unfortunate　individual　who

happens　to　be　the　particular　subject　of　it；　but　it　cannot　alter　the

law。　　Though　the　common　law　may　be　termed　〃Lex　non　Scripta；〃　yet　the

same　Hale　tells　us　〃when　I　call　those　parts　of　our　laws　Leges　non

Scriptae；　I　do　not　mean　as　if　those　laws　were　only　oral；　or

communicated　from　the　former　ages　to　the　latter　merely　by　word。　　For

all　those　laws　have　their　several　monuments　in　writing；　whereby　they

are　transferred　from　one　age　to　another；　and　without　which　they　would

soon　lose　all　kind　of　certainty。　　They　are　for　the　most　part　extant

in　records　of　pleas；　proceedings；　and　judgments；　in　books　of　reports

and　judicial　decisions；　in　tractates　of　learned　men's　arguments　and

opinions；　preserved　from　ancient　times　and　still　extant　in　writing。〃

Hale's　H。　c。　d。　22。　　Authorities　for　what　is　common　law　may　therefore

be　as　well　cited；　as　for　any　part　of　the　Lex　Scripta；　and　there　is　no

better　instance　of　the　necessity　of　holding　the　judges　and　writers　to

a　declaration　of　their　authorities　than　the　present；　where　we　detect

them　endeavoring　to　make　law　where　they　found　none；　and　to　submit　us

at　one　stroke　to　a　whole　system；　no　particle　of　which　has　its

foundation　in　the　common　law。　　For　we　know　that　the　common　law　is

that　system　of　law　which　was　introduced　by　the　Saxons　on　their

settlement　in　England；　and　altered　from　time　to　time　by　proper

legislative　authority　from　that　time　to　the　date　of　Magna　Charta；

which　terminates　the　period　of　the　common　law；　or　lex　non　scripta；

and　commences　that　of　the　statute　law；　or　Lex　Scripta。　　This

settlement　took　place　about　the　middle　of　the　fifth　century。　　But

Christianity　was　not　introduced　till　the　seventh　century；　the

conversion　of　the　first　christian　king　of　the　Heptarchy　having　taken

place　about　the　year　598；　and　that　of　the　last　about　686。　　Here；

then；　was　a　space　of　two　hundred　years；　during　which　the　common　law

was　in　existence；　and　Christianity　no　part　of　it。　　If　it　ever　was

adopted；　therefore；　into　the　common　law；　it　must　have　been　between

the　introduction　of　Christianity　and　the　date　of　the　Magna　Charta。

But　of　the　laws　of　this　period　we　have　a　tolerable　collection　by

Lambard　and　Wilkins；　probably　not　perfect；　but　neither　very

defective；　and　if　any　one　chooses　to　build　a　doctrine　on　any　law　of

that　period；　supposed　to　have　been　lost；　it　is　incumbent　on　him　to

prove　it　to　have　existed；　and　what　were　its　contents。　　These　were　so

far　alterations　of　the　common　law；　and　became　themselves　a　part　of

it。　　But　none　of　these　adopt　Christianity　as　a　part　of　the　common

law。　　If；　therefore；　from　the　settlement　of　the　Saxons　to　the

introduction　of　Christianity　among　them；　that　system　of　religion

could　not　be　a　part　of　the　common　law；　because　they　were　not　yet

Christians；　and　if；　having　their　laws　from　that　period　to　the　close

of　the　common　law；　we　are　all　able　to　find　among　them　no　such　act　of

adoption；　we　may　safely　affirm　（though　contradicted　by　all　the　judges

and　writers　on　earth）　that　Christianity　neither　is；　nor　ever　was　a

part　of　the　common　law。　　Another　cogent　proof　of　this　truth　is　drawn

from　the　silence　of　certain　writers　on　the　common　law。　　Bracton　gives

us　a　very　complete　and　scientific　treatise　of　the　whole　body　of　the

common　law。　　He　wrote　this　about　the　close　of　the　reign　of　Henry

III。；　a　very　few　years　after　the　date　of　the　Magna　Charta。　　We

consider　this　book　as　the　more　valuable；　as　it　was　written　about　fore

gives　us　the　former　in　its　ultimate　state。　　Bracton；　too；　was　an

ecclesiastic；　and　would　certainly　not　have　failed　to　inform　us　of　the

adoption　of　Christianity　as　a　part　of　the　common　law；　had　any　such

adoption　ever　taken　place。　　But　no　word　of　his；　which　intimates

anything　like　it；　has　ever　been　cited。　　Fleta　and　Britton；　who　wrote

in　the　succeeding　reign　（of　Edward　I。）；　are　equally　silent。　　So　also

is　Glanvil；　an　earlier　writer　than　any　of　them；　（viz。：　temp。　　H。　2；）

but　his　subject　perhaps　might　not　have　led　him　to　mention　it。

Justice　Fortescue　Aland；　who　possessed　more　Saxon　learning　than　all

t