flag bunting


OFFICIALLY: "A Christian Nation!"

flag divider

In A Unanimous Decision!

god bless bar

Welcome to Ministers-Best-Friend.com

"A Christian Nation, in a Christian World, in our Lifetime!"

Worth Living For? Fighting For? Dying For? Voting For?


rotating star rotating star

Search Web's Most Comprehensive Christian Site

All-Things-Bible, Church, History, Leadership, Psychology, Politics, Science, Health,
Sermon Resources, "Starters", Illustrations & Stories, Humor, Quotes, Sermons (Audio & Print)
From Ancient Rome & Greece & Jewish History to TOP-TEN News Headlines!

The Web Ministers-Best-Friend

We will never forget 9-11 in Patriotic colors

Please visit ‘Index' before leaving. See our TOP-TEN-SERIES

INDEX: Top-Ten Series, Most Recent Webpages, **Urgent!, etc,


flag bunting


Legal Scholar David Brewer

Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States

(143 U.S. 457, 36 L.Ed. 226, 12 S. Ct. 511 February 29, 1892)

US Supreme Court Chief Justice, Melville Fuller

US Supreme Court Associate Justices

Stephen J. Field, Joseph P. Bradley, John M. Harlan, Horace Gray,
Samuel Blatchford, Lucius Q.C. Lamar II,
David J. Brewer, Henry B. Brown,

flag divider

SUPREME COURT CASE: Holy Trinity Church of New York, hired a minister from England to serve their rectory, and paid the minister's expenses to move to the USA, without going through an immigration process.

THE VIOLATED STATUTE: The attorney for the state of New York believed this was a violation of an relatively new law passed in 1885 which disallowed as follows: "...a person, company, partnership, or corporation, in any manner whatsoever to prepay the transportation, or in any way assist or encourage the importation or migration, of any alien or aliens, any foreigner or foreigners, into the United States ... under contract or agreement ... to perform labor or service of any kind in the United States...."

SUPREME COURT VERDICT: The New York Circuit Court did err when it held that the contract hiring an English rector was within the prohibition of the said statute. The US Supreme Court holds that a duly educated minister as a trained professional is not a laborer.

SUPREME COURT DECISION: A Majority Decision, written by Associate Justice David Brewer, who was joined by unanimous consent of the US Supreme Court in this case.

[Researcher's Note: The first several pages of this decision deal with the legalities of the case, laws, legislative intent, etc., and the Supreme Court's decision to side for Holy Trinity Church. The following pages are their 'evidence' why they decided for the 'church' and against the 'government'., and even this has been condensed.

This was a 10-year-long case, with a massive amount of evidence considered, perhaps the singular most preponderant case in the court's history. For a Christian, to read their words and reasoning is enough to make one weep with joy!]

143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226 STATUTES 212

It being historically true that the American people are a religious people,

as shown by the religious objects expressed by the original grants and charters of the colonies,

and the recognition of religion in the most solemn acts of their history,

as well as in the constitutions of the states and the nation,

The courts - in construing statutes - should not impute to any legislature a purpose of action against religion.

[NOTE: We are repeating this line for emphasis, this advice from the US Supreme Court to all lesser courts:]

The courts, in construing statutes, should not impute to any legislature a purpose of action against religion.


But, beyond all these matters, no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this-is-a-religious-people.

From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation.

This is historically true.



The commission to Christopher Columbus, prior to his sail westward, is from "Ferdinand and Isabella, by the grace of God, King and Queen of Castile," etc., and recites that "it is hoped that by God's assistance some of the continents and islands in the [456] ocean will be discovered," etc.

(NEWTONSTEIN NOTE: Ferdinand and Isabella were both devout and fervent Christians, so the 'God' they reference is the 'Jesus Christ of Christianity' . . . not Buddha, Confucius, Mohammad, or Allah, or Hare Krishna, etc.)


The First Colonial Grant, made to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584, was from "Queen Elizabeth, by the grace of God, of England, France, and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith," etc.; and the grant authorizing him to enact statutes of the government of the proposed colony provided that "they be not against the true Christian faith now professed in the Church of England."

The First Charter of Virginia, granted by King James-I in 1606, after reciting the application of certain parties for a charter, commenced the grant in these words: "We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may,

by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of His Divine Majesty,

in propagating of Christian Religion,

to such People as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet Government;

DO, by these our Letters-Patents, graciously accept of, and agree to, their humble and well-intentioned Desires."


Language of similar import may be found in the subsequent charters of that colony from the same king, in 1609 and 1611; and the same is true of the various charters granted to the other colonies.

In language more or less emphatic is the establishment of the Christian religion declared to be one of the purposes of the grant.

PILGRIMS & MAYFLOWER COMPACT The celebrated compact made by the pilgrims in the Mayflower Compact, 1620, recites:

"Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honor of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia;

Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid."

The Fundamental orders of Connecticut, under which a provisional government was instituted in 1638-39, commence with this declaration:

"Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Almighty God by the wise disposition of his Divine prudence [143 U.S. 457, 467] so to order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and upon the River of Connecticut and the Lands thereunto adjoining;

And well knowing where a people are gathered together, the Word of {515} God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affairs of the people at all seasons as occasion shall require; do therefore associate and conjoin our selves to said Public State or Commonwealth;

And do, for our selves and our Successors and such as shall be adjoined to us at any time hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation gather;

To maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also the discipline of the Churches, which according to the truth of the said gospel is now practiced amongst vs."

In the Charter of Privileges granted by William Penn to the Province of Pennsylvania, in 1701, it is recited:

"Because no People can be truly happy, though under the greatest Enjoyment of Civil Liberties, if abridged of the Freedom of their Consciences, as to their Religious Profession and Worship; And Almighty God being the only Lord of Conscience, Father of Lights and Spirits; and the Author as well as Object of all Divine Knowledge, Faith, and Worship, who only doth enlighten the Minds, and persuade and convince the Understandings of People, I do hereby grant and declare," etc.

Coming nearer to the present time, the Declaration of Independence recognizes the presence of the Divine in human affairs in these words:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare," etc.; "And for the [143 U.S. 457, 468] support of this Declaration,

With a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations.

Every constitution of every one of the [44] states contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the well-being of the community.

This recognition may be in the preamble, such as is found in the constitution of Illinois, 1870: "We, the people of the state of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations," etc.

It may be in clauses like that of the constitution of Indiana, 1816, art. 11, §4: "The manner of administering an oath or affirmation shall be such as is most consistent with the conscience of the deponent, and shall be esteemed the most solemn appeal to God."

It may be found in the familiar requisition that all officers shall take an oath closing with the declaration, "so help me God."

Or in provisions such as are found in articles 36 and 37 of the declaration of the rights of the constitution of Maryland, (1867):

"That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty: wherefore, no person ought, by any law, to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice,

unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace, or safety of the state, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil, or religious rights;

nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent or maintain or contribute, "unless-on-contract", to maintain any place of worship or any ministry;

Nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness or juror on account of his religious belief:

provided, he [143 U.S. 457, 469] believes in the existence of God, and that, under His dispensation, such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore, either in this world or the world to come.

That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office or profit or trust in this state, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God;

Nor shall the legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this constitution."

Or like that in articles 2 and 3 of part 1 of the constitution of Massachusetts, (1780:)

"It is the right as well as the duty of all men [citizens] in society publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the Great Creator and Preserver of the universe.

As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality,

and as these "cannot" be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of public instructions in piety, religion, and morality:

Therefore, to promote their happiness, and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require,

and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic or religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense,

- for the institution of the public worship of God

- and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety,

- religion and morality,

- in all cases where such provisions shall not be made voluntarily."

Or, as in sections 5 and 14 of article 7 of the constitution of Mississippi, (1832:)

"No person who denies the being of a God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

Religion {516} morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government, the preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind, schools, and the means of education, shall forever be encouraged in this state."

Or by article 22 of the constitution of Delaware, (1776,) which required all officers, besides an oath of allegiance, to make and subscribe the following declaration:

"I, ____________, do profess [143 U.S. 457, 470]
faith in God the Father,
and in Jesus Christ His only Son,
and in the Holy Ghost,
one God,
blessed for evermore;
and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures
of the Old and New Testament
to be given by divine inspiration."

Even the constitution of the United States, which is supposed to have little touch upon the private life of the individual, contains in the first amendment a declaration common to the constitutions of all the states, as follows:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," etc.,

- and also provides in article 1, § 7, (a provision common to many constitutions,) that the executive shall have 10 days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill.

While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts;

[Y]et we find that in Updegraph v. Comm., 11 Serg. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that, "Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law . . .; not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men."

And in People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294, 295, Chancellor KENT, the great commentator on American law, speaking as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, said:

"The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith and practice;

And to scandalize the Author of those doctrines in not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order.

The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious [143 U.S. 457, 471] subject, is granted and secured;

But to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right.

Nor are we bound by any expressions in the constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mohammad or of the Grand [Dali] Lama;

And for this plain reason that the case assumes that we

- are a Christian people,

-and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity,

-and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors."

[NOTE! Researcher emphasizes this says the false religions named, DO NOT have a right to be free of attacks upon them, and there is not ANY SUCH EXPRESSION in the CONSTITUTION]

If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth.

Among other matters note the following:

The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty;

The custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies, the U.S Supreme Court, & most conventions with prayer;

The prefatory words of all wills, "In the name of God, Amen;"

The laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and

The closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day;

The Christian churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet;

The multitude of charitable organizations existing everywhere under Christian auspices;

The gigantic missionary associations, with general support, andaiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe.

-There is no dissonance in these declarations.

-There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning.

-They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation.

-These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons.

-They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people.

These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian Nation.

In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation?

[143 U.S. 457, 472] Suppose, in the congress that passed this act, some member had offered a bill which in terms declared that, if any Roman Catholic Church in this country should contract with Cardinal Manning to come to this country, and enter into its service as pastor and priest,

or any Episcopal Church should enter into a like contract with Canon Farrar, or any Baptist Church should make similar arrangements with Rev. Mr. Spurgeon, or any Jewish Synagogue with some eminent Rabbi, such contract should be adjudged unlawful and void, and the Church making it be subject to prosecution and punishment.

[NOTE ABOVE: Researcher calls attention to this section where Protestant Christians, Anglican-Episcopalian, Roman Catholic and Jews are mentioned with equal status, contrary to the section above where the religions of Mohammad and the Dali Lama above are declared to not be "true religions" but rather "impostors"]

Can it be believed that it would have received a minute of approving thought or a single vote? Yet it is contended that such was, in effect, the meaning of this statute. The construction invoked cannot be accepted as correct.

It is a case where there was presented a definite evil, in view of which the legislature used general terms with the purpose of reaching all phases of that evil; and thereafter, unexpectedly, it is developed that the general language thus employed is broad enough to reach cases and acts which the whole history and life of the country affirm could not have been intentionally legislated against.

It is the duty of the courts, under those circumstances, to say that, however {517} broad the language of the statute may be, the act, although within the letter, is not with the intention of the legislature, and therefore cannot be within the statute.

The judgment will be reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion.


We will never forget 9-11 in Patriotic colors
flag bunting

Christian Nation, Christian World, Our Lifetime!


COPYRIGHT (c) 1977 Cambridge Theological Seminary


FROM: IAIA Accreditation TO: Dr. D. James Kennedy: Can you be as Bold as Him?

FROM: IAIA Accreditation TO: Cambridge Theological Seminary, USA

FROM: IAIA Accreditation TO: Free Ordination-1 by Cambridge Theological Seminary

FROM: IAIA Accreditation, TO: Religious Degrees, Bachelor's, Master's and Doctorate

FROM: IAIA Accreditation, TO: A few Recent Ministry Partners

FROM: IAIA Accreditation,

FROM: IAIA Accreditation, TO: Ministers Main Page

FROM: IAIA Accreditation, TO: Home-Based-Ministry: Serve God, Make Money, Save Taxes



Most Important Questions You'll Ever Answer?

Do you understand "Eternal Life as God's FREE GIFT" - Unearned and Undeserved?
"Eternal Life as God's FREE GIFT!"

Do you know FOR SURE that you have Eternal Life: Here & Now?

"Eternal Life: Here & Now FOR SURE!"

In 'VERY FEW MINUTES' ... you can Know for Certain if you're saved ... or not!
In 'TWO MINUTES' - Know if you're Saved or not!

Red-White-and-Blue In-God-We-Trust

Search Web's Most Comprehensive Christian Site

All-Things-Bible, Church, History, Leadership, Psychology, Politics, Science, Health,
Sermon Resources, "Starters", Illustrations & Stories, Humor, Quotes, Sermons (Audio & Print)
From Ancient Rome, Greece & Jewish History to Latest News Headlines!

The Web Ministers-Best-Friend


flag divider

JCSM's Top 1000 Christian Sites - Free Traffic Sharing Service! The BaptistTop1000.com

Harvard Theological Seminary

The "Gold Standard" in Theological Education