Re: Courting Fear

Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common
law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.
---
nope
Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common
law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.

On Jun 4, 10:17 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> MJ,
>
> You very much made my point.  Thank you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:50 AM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> > I have never even insinuated that this Nation is somehow based upon a
> > Christian demoniation or that we are all supposed to be beholding to
> > Christian belief.  It is asinine to sit here and think that this Nation was
> > not based upon Christian tenets and principals.  One need only look to our
> > common law;  or most any of our federal buidlings to see that the Deists,
> > as well as those Christians played a very large part in the founding of
> > this Nation.  To ignore this is revisionist history.
>
> > *Letter to Thomas Cooper
> > **Jefferson's letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, from Monticello, February 10,
> > 1814.
>
> > * [image: D] ear 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.