Wingatealso；SheppardquotesPrisot，FinchandWingate；Halecitesnobody；thecourtinWoolston’scaseciteHale；WoodcitesWoolston’scase；BlackstonethatandHale；andLordMansfield，likeHale，venturesitonhisownauthority。Intheearlieragesofthelaw，asintheyear-books，forinstance，wedonotexpectmuchrecurrencetoauthoritiesbythejudges，becauseinthosedaystherewerefewornonesuchmadepublic。Butinlattertimeswetakenojudge’swordforwhatthelawis，furtherthanheiswarrantedbytheauthoritiesheappealsto。Hisdecisionmaybindtheunfortunateindividualwhohappenstobetheparticularsubjectofit；butitcannotalterthelaw。Thoughthecommonlawmaybetermed”LexnonScripta，”yetthesameHaletellsus”whenIcallthosepartsofourlawsLegesnonScriptae，Idonotmeanasifthoselawswereonlyoral，orcommunicatedfromtheformeragestothelattermerelybyword。Forallthoselawshavetheirseveralmonumentsinwriting，wherebytheyaretransferredfromoneagetoanother，andwithoutwhichtheywouldsoonloseallkindofcertainty。Theyareforthemostpartextantinrecordsofpleas，proceedings，andjudgments，inbooksofreportsandjudicialdecisions，intractatesoflearnedmen’sargumentsandopinions，preservedfromancienttimesandstillextantinwriting。”
　　Hale’sH。c。d。22。Authoritiesforwhatiscommonlawmaythereforebeaswellcited，asforanypartoftheLexScripta，andthereisnobetterinstanceofthenecessityofholdingthejudgesandwriterstoadeclarationoftheirauthoritiesthanthepresent；wherewedetectthemendeavoringtomakelawwheretheyfoundnone，andtosubmitusatonestroketoawholesystem，noparticleofwhichhasitsfoundationinthecommonlaw。ForweknowthatthecommonlawisthatsystemoflawwhichwasintroducedbytheSaxonsontheirsettlementinEngland，andalteredfromtimetotimebyproperlegislativeauthorityfromthattimetothedateofMagnaCharta，whichterminatestheperiodofthecommonlaw，orlexnonscripta，andcommencesthatofthestatutelaw，orLexScripta。Thissettlementtookplaceaboutthemiddleofthefifthcentury。ButChristianitywasnotintroducedtilltheseventhcentury；theconversionofthefirstchristiankingoftheHeptarchyhavingtakenplaceabouttheyear598，andthatofthelastabout686。Here，then，wasaspaceoftwohundredyears，duringwhichthecommonlawwasinexistence，andChristianitynopartofit。Ifiteverwasadopted，therefore，intothecommonlaw，itmusthavebeenbetweentheintroductionofChristianityandthedateoftheMagnaCharta。
　　ButofthelawsofthisperiodwehaveatolerablecollectionbyLambardandWilkins，probablynotperfect，butneitherverydefective；andifanyonechoosestobuildadoctrineonanylawofthatperiod，supposedtohavebeenlost，itisincumbentonhimtoproveittohaveexisted，andwhatwereitscontents。Theseweresofaralterationsofthecommonlaw，andbecamethemselvesapartofit。ButnoneoftheseadoptChristianityasapartofthecommonlaw。If，therefore，fromthesettlementoftheSaxonstotheintroductionofChristianityamongthem，thatsystemofreligioncouldnotbeapartofthecommonlaw，becausetheywerenotyetChristians，andif，havingtheirlawsfromthatperiodtothecloseofthecommonlaw，weareallabletofindamongthemnosuchactofadoption，wemaysafelyaffirmthoughcontradictedbyallthejudgesandwritersonearththatChristianityneitheris，noreverwasapartofthecommonlaw。Anothercogentproofofthistruthisdrawnfromthesilenceofcertainwritersonthecommonlaw。Bractongivesusaverycompleteandscientifictreatiseofthewholebodyofthecommonlaw。HewrotethisaboutthecloseofthereignofHenryIII。，averyfewyearsafterthedateoftheMagnaCharta。Weconsiderthisbookasthemorevaluable，asitwaswrittenaboutforegivesustheformerinitsultimatestate。Bracton，too，wasanecclesiastic，andwouldcertainlynothavefailedtoinformusoftheadoptionofChristianityasapartofthecommonlaw，hadanysuchadoptionevertakenplace。Butnowordofhis，whichintimatesanythinglikeit，haseverbeencited。FletaandBritton，whowroteinthesucceedingreignofEdwardI。，areequallysilent。SoalsoisGlanvil，anearlierwriterthananyofthem，viz。：temp。H。2，
　　buthissubjectperhapsmightnothaveledhimtomentionit。
　　JusticeFortescueAland，whopossessedmoreSaxonlearningthanallthejudgesandwritersbeforementionedputtogether，placesthissubjectonmorelimitedground。SpeakingofthelawsoftheSaxonkings，hesays，”thetencommandmentsweremadepartoftheirlaws，andconsequentlywere_once_partofthelawofEngland；sothattobreakanyofthetencommandmentswasthenesteemedabreachofthecommonlaw，ofEngland；andwhyitisnotsonow，perhapsitmaybedifficulttogiveagoodreason。”PrefacetoFortescueAland’sreports，xvii。Hadheproposedtostatewithmoreminutenesshowmuchofthescriptureshadbeenmadeapartofthecommonlaw，hemighthaveaddedthatinthelawsofAlfred，wherehefoundthetencommandments，twoorthreeotherchaptersofExodusarecopiedalmostverbatim。Buttheadoptionofapartprovesratherarejectionoftherest，asmunicipallaw。WemightaswellsaythattheNewtoniansystemofphilosophyisapartofthecommonlaw，asthattheChristianreligionis。ThetruthisthatChristianityandNewtonianismbeingreasonandverityitself，intheopinionofallbutinfidelsandCartesians，theyareprotectedunderthewingsofthecommonlawfromthedominionofothersects，butnoterectedintodominionoverthem。AneminentSpanishphysicianaffirmedthatthelancethadslainmorementhanthesword。DoctorSangrado，onthecontrary，affirmedthatwithplentifulbleedings，anddraughtsofwarmwater，everydiseasewastobecured。Thecommonlawprotectsbothopinions，butenactsneitherintolaw。Seepost。879。
　　879。Howard，inhisContumesAnglo-Normandes，1。87，noticesthefalsificationofthelawsofAlfred，byprefixingtothemfourchaptersoftheJewishlaw，towit：the20th，21st，22dand23dchaptersofExodus，towhichhemighthaveaddedthe15thchapteroftheActsoftheApostles，v。23，andpreceptsfromotherpartsofthescripture。Thesehecallsa_horsd’oeuvre_ofsomepiouscopyist。
　　ThisawkwardmonkishfabricationmakestheprefacetoAlfred’sgenuinelawsstandinthebodyofthework，andtheverywordsofAlfredhimselfprovethefraud；forhedeclares，inthatpreface，thathehascollectedtheselawsfromthoseofIna，ofOffa，Aethelbertandhisancestors，sayingnothingofanyofthembeingtakenfromtheScriptures。Itisstillmorecertainlyprovedbytheinconsistenciesitoccasions。Forexample，theJewishlegislatorExodusxxi。12，13，14，copiedbythePseudoAlfred[symbolomitted]
　　13，makesmurder，withtheJews，death。ButAlfredhimself，Le。
　　xxvi。，punishesitbyafineonly，calledaWeregild，proportionedtotheconditionofthepersonkilled。ItisremarkablethatHumeappend。1tohisHistoryexaminingthisarticleofthelawsofAlfred，withoutperceivingthefraud，puzzleshimselfwithaccountingfortheinconsistencyithadintroduced。TostrikeapregnantwomansothatshedieisdeathbyExodus，xxi。22，23，andPseud。Alfr。18；
　　butbythelawsofAlfredix。，paysaWeregildforbothwomanandchild。Tosmiteoutaneye，oratooth，Exod。xxi。24-27。Pseud。
　　Alfr。19，20，ifofaservantbyhismaster，isfreedomtotheservant；ineveryothercaseretaliation。ButbyAlfr。Le。xl。afixedindemnificationispaid。Theftofanox，orasheep，bytheJewishlaw，Exod。xxii。1，wasrepaidfive-foldfortheoxandfour-foldforthesheep；bythePseudograph24，theoxdouble，thesheepfour-fold；butbyAlfredLe。xvi。，hewhostoleacowandacalfwastorepaytheworthofthecowand401forthecalf。Goringbyanoxwasthedeathoftheox，andthefleshnottobeeaten。
　　Exod。xxi。28。Pseud。Alfr。21byAlfredLe。xxiv。，thewoundedpersonhadtheox。ThePseudographmakesmunicipallawsofthetencommandments，1-10，regulatesconcubinage，12，makesitdeathtostrikeortocursefatherormother，14，15，givesaneyeforaneye，toothforatooth，handforhand，footforfoot，burningforburning，woundforwound，strifeforstrife，19；sellsthethieftorepayhistheft，24；obligesthefornicatortomarrythewomanhehaslainwith，29；forbidsinterestonmoney，35；makesthelawsofbailment，28，verydifferentfromwhatLordHoltdeliversinCoggs_v_。
　　Bernard，ante92，andwhatSirWilliamJonestellsustheywere；andpunisheswitchcraftwithdeath，30，whichSirMatthewHale，1H。P。
　　C。B。1，ch。33，declareswasnotafelonybeforetheStat。1，Jac。
　　12。Itwasunderthatstatute，andnotthisforgery，thathehungRoseCullendarandAmyDuny，16Car。2，1662，onwhosetrialhedeclared”thatthereweresuchcreaturesaswitcheshemadenodoubtatall；forfirsttheScripturehadaffirmedsomuch，secondlythewisdomofallnationshadprovidedlawsagainstsuchpersons，andsuchhathbeenthejudgmentofthiskingdom，asappearsbythatactofParliamentwhichhathprovidedpunishmentproportionabletothequalityoftheoffence。”Andwemustcertainlyallowgreaterweighttothispositionthat”itwasnofelonytillJames’Statute，”laiddowndeliberatelyinhisH。P。C。，aworkwhichhewrotetobeprinted，finished，andtranscribedforthepressinhislifetime，thantothehastyscripturethat”at_commonlaw_witchcraftwaspunishedwithdeathasheresy，bywritdeHereticoComburendo”inhisMethodicalSummaryoftheP。C。p。6，awork”notintendedforthepress，notfittedforit，andwhichhedeclaredhimselfhehadneverreadoversinceitwaswritten；”Pref。Unlessweunderstandhismeaninginthattobethatwitchcraftcouldnotbepunishedatcommonlawaswitchcraft，butasheresy。Ineithersense，however，itisadenialofthispretendedlawofAlfred。Now，allmenofreadingknowthatthesepretendedlawsofhomicide，concubinage，theft，retaliation，compulsorymarriage，usury，bailment，andotherswhichmighthavebeencited，fromthePseudograph，wereneverthelawsofEngland，noteveninAlfred’stime；andofcoursethatitisaforgery。Yetpalpableasitmustbetoeverylawyer，theEnglishjudgeshavepiouslyavoidedliftingtheveilunderwhichitwasshrouded。Intruth，thealliancebetweenChurchandStateinEnglandhasevermadetheirjudgesaccomplicesinthefraudsoftheclergy；
　　andevenbolderthantheyare。ForinsteadofbeingcontentedwiththesefoursurreptitiouschaptersofExodus，theyhavetakenthewholeleap，anddeclaredatoncethatthewholeBibleandTestamentinalump，makeapartofthecommonlaw；ante873：thefirstjudicialdeclarationofwhichwasbythissameSirMatthewHale。AndthustheyincorporateintotheEnglishcodelawsmadefortheJewsalone，andthepreceptsofthegospel，intendedbytheirbenevolentauthorasobligatoryonlyin_foroconcientiae_；andtheyarmthewholewiththecoercionsofmunicipallaw。Indoingthis，too，theyhavenotevenusedtheConnecticutcautionofdeclaring，asisdoneintheirbluelaws，thatthelawsofGodshallbethelawsoftheirland，exceptwheretheirowncontradictthem；buttheyswallowtheyeaandnaytogether。Finally，inanswertoFortescueAland’squestionwhythetencommandmentsshouldnotnowbeapartofthecommonlawofEngland?wemaysaytheyarenotbecausetheyneverweremadesobylegislativeauthority，thedocumentwhichhasimposedthatdoubtonhimbeingamanifestforgery。
　　CLASSIFICATIONINNATURALHISTORY
　　_ToDr。JohnManners_
　　_Monticello，February22，1814_