Who or what else could someone seriously refer to other than Locke, Blackstone's English law, and the Bible itself? Confucious?? Buddha?? The Space Federation??
You mention Blackstone. Can't argue with that choice. Let's see what he had to say on the origins of English law:OUR antient lawyers, and particularly Fortefcue c, infift with abundance of warmth, that thefe cuftoms are as old as the primitive Britons, and continued down, through the feveral mutations of government and inhabitants, to the prefent time, unchanged and unadulterated. This may be the cafe as to fome; but in general, as Mr. Selden in his notes obferves, this affertion muft be underftood with many grains of allowance; and ought only to fignify, as the truth feems to be, that there never was any formal exchange of one fyftem of laws for another: though doubtlefs by the intermixture of adventitious nations, the Romans, the Picts, the Saxons, the Danes, and the Normans, they muft have infenfibly introduced and incorporated many of their own cuftoms with thofe that were before eftablifhed: thereby in all probability improving the texture and wifdom of the whole, by the accumulated wifdom of divers particular countries. Our laws, faith lord Bacon d, are mixed as our language: and as our language is fo much the richer, the laws are the more complete.
So Blackstone seems to think that English law had antecedents in Roman, Danish, Norman, Pict, and Saxon law. I'm certainly not going to argue with him. And it would be supposed that these laws, in turn, had antecedents that contributed to them and thus to English law.