David Brewer, the son of American missionaries, was born in Turkey on 20th June, 1837. The family returned to the United States in 1840 and Brewer was educated in Connecticut before attending Yale University.
Admitted to the bar in 1858, Brewer worked as a lawyer in Leavenworth before becoming a district judge in Kansas. Later he was a member of the Kansas Supreme Court (1870-84) and the federal circuit court (1884-89).
President Benjamin Harrison appointed him to the Supreme Court in 1889. A conservative he was particularly hostile to the emerging socialist movement. He criticised all plans to redistribute wealth and made many speeches in favour of inequality. In one speech in New York City in 1893 he argued: "It is the unvarying law that the wealth of a community will be in the hands of a few; and the greater the general wealth, the greater the individual accumulations. The large majority of men are unwilling to endure the long self-denial and saving which makes accumulation possible; they have not the business tact and sagacity which brings about large combinations and great financial results."
In 1894 the Pullman Palace Car Company reduced the wages of its workers. When the company refused arbitration, the American Railway Union called a strike. Starting in Chicago it spread to 27 states. The attorney-general, Richard Olney, sought an injunction under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. As a result, of Olney's action, Eugene Debs, president of the American Railway Union, was arrested and despite being defended by Clarence Darrow, was imprisoned.
The case came before the Supreme Court in 1895. Brewer spoke for the court on 27th May, explaining why he refused the American Railway Union's appeal. "It is obvious that while it is not the province of the government to interfere in any mere matter of private controversy between individuals, or to use its great powers to enforce the rights of one against another, yet, whenever the wrongs complained of are such as affect the public at large, and are in respect of matters which by the Constitution are entrusted to the care of the nation, and concerning which the nation owes the duty to all the citizens of securing to them their common rights, then the mere fact that the government has no pecuniary interest in the controversy is not sufficient to exclude it from the courts or prevent it from taking measures therein to fully discharge those constitutional duties." This decision was a great set-back for the trade union movement.
David Brewer died on 28th March, 1910.
It is the unvarying law that the wealth of a community will be in the hands of a few; and the greater the general wealth, the greater the individual accumulations. The large majority of men are unwilling to endure the long self-denial and saving which makes accumulation possible; they have not the business tact and sagacity which brings about large combinations and great financial results; and hence it always has been, and until human nature is remodeled always will be, true that the wealth of a nation is in the hands of a few, while the many subsist upon the proceeds of their daily toil. But security is the chief end of government; and other things being equal, that government is best which protects to the fullest extent each individual, rich or poor, high or low, in the possession of his property and the pursuit of his business.
It was the boast of our ancestors in the Old Country that they were able to wrest from the power of the king so much security for life, liberty and property. Here, there is no monarch threatening trespass upon the individual. The danger is from the multitudes - the majority, with whom is the power. The common rule as to strikes is this: Not merely do the employees quit the employment, and thus handicap the employer in the use of his property, and perhaps in the discharge of duties which he owes to the public; but they also forcibly prevent others from taking their places.
It is obvious that while it is not the province of the government to interfere in any mere matter of private controversy between individuals, or to use its great powers to enforce the rights of one against another, yet, whenever the wrongs complained of are such as affect the public at large, and are in respect of matters which by the Constitution are entrusted to the care of the nation, and concerning which the nation owes the duty to all the citizens of securing to them their common rights, then the mere fact that the government has no pecuniary interest in the controversy is not sufficient to exclude it from the courts or prevent it from taking measures therein to fully discharge those constitutional duties.
The national government, given by the Constitution power to regulate interstate commerce, has by express statute assumed jurisdiction over such commerce when carried upon railroads. It is charged, therefore, with the duty of keeping those highways of interstate commerce free from obstruction, for it has always been recognized as one of the powers and duties of a government to remove obstructions from the highways under its control.
David A. Brewer
David A. Brewer works on the literary, theatrical and visual culture of the long eighteenth century, plus the history of authorship and reading more generally. He is also fascinated by the methodological challenges of writing literary history. Brewer is the author of The Afterlife of Character, 1726-1825 (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005, as part of their Material Texts series) and the recipient of a fellowship from the National Endowment for the Humanities. His edition of Richard Brinsley Sheridan's The Rivals and George Colman the Elder's Polly Honeycombe came out in 2012 from Broadview Press.
In addition to his solo-authored work, Brewer has been involved in two major collaborative projects in the history of the book: Interacting with Print: Elements of Reading in the Era of Print Saturation (University of Chicago Press, 2018) and The Book in Britain: A Historical Introduction (Wiley-Blackwell, 2019).
Brewer's current book project, The Fate of Authors, investigates the uses to which authorial names were put in the eighteenth-century Anglophone world. He is also in the midst of preparing another Broadview Edition, this time of two of Penelope Aubin's novels.
In 2020, he received the Ronald and Deborah Ratner Distinguished Teaching Award.
In June 2014, Lynn Festa and he taught the summer seminar in the history of the book at the American Antiquarian Society.
History of the Court – Timeline of the Justices – David J. Brewer, 1890-1910
DAVID J. BREWER was born in Smyrna, Asia Minor, in what is now Izir, Turkey, on June 20, 1837. His missionary family returned to the United States one year after Brewer’s birth and settled in Wethersfield, Connecticut. Brewer attended Wesleyan University for two years and then transferred to Yale, where he was graduated in 1856. After reading law for one year, Brewer attended Albany Law School and was graduated in 1858. He then moved to Kansas, where he was admitted to the bar and established a law practice. In 1861, Brewer was appointed Commissioner of the Circuit Court in Leavenworth. Two years later, he was elected a Judge of the Probate and Criminal Courts of Leavenworth County. From 1865 to 1869, he served on the United States District Court for Kansas. Brewer was elected to the Kansas Supreme Court in 1870 and served for fourteen years. In 1884, President Chester A. Arthur appointed Brewer to the Circuit Court for the Eighth Circuit. Five years later, on December 6, 1889, President Benjamin Harrison nominated Brewer to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Senate confirmed the appointment on December 18, 1889. Brewer served on the Supreme Court for twenty years. He died on March 28, 1910, at the age of seventy-two.
David Instone-Brewer graduated from the South Wales Baptist College in Cardiff and then began a Ph.D. program at Cambridge University. His research focused on Paul's use of the Hebrew Scriptures in light of ancient Jewish interpretation in New Testament times, and was published as Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis Before 70 CE., Vol.30 of Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum (Mohr & Siebeck, Tübingen, 1992). For five years Instone-Brewer was Assistant Minister and then Minister at Llanishen Baptist Church in Cardiff. Divorcees often came to him because they could not get remarried in their Anglican or Catholic church. This forced him to look again at the scriptural foundations of the church teaching on this issue. In the light of his Jewish studies he saw that the New Testament presented a very different picture to the one that most scholars had previously seen. He produced several academic papers and a large academic book on the subject. He followed this up with a summary booklet for the Grove Biblical series and a book on divorce and pastoral issues for general readers. Instone-Brewer's hobby is computer programming. Tyndale House in Cambridge approached him to be their Research Librarian because of his dual skills in computers and academic biblical studies. The Ministry Department of the Baptist Union encouraged him, saying that the academic world was an important area of work for Baptist Ministers. After a few years Tyndale House gave him more time to spend on research by making him a Research Fellow and Technical Officer. Tyndale House is (arguably) among the three best libraries in the world in the area of Biblical Studies (alongside the École Biblique in Jerusalem and the Pontifical Institute in Rome). Instone-Brewer is now engaged in a five-year project to identify and elucidate all the rabbinic traditions that can be dated before 70 C.E. He applies dating techniques that have been established by rabbinic scholars during the last thirty years. Publication of asix-volume work by Eerdmans began in 2004. This effort will help New Testament scholars rediscover rabbinic texts that have been neglected due to uncertainties about dating.
Articles by David Instone-Brewer
Filter Articles by Tag
- Agriculture David Instone-Brewer First-century Jewish Sects FIX-footnotes Food and Food Preparation Halachah Holidays and Calendar Oral Torah Rabbinic Literature Sabbath Sayings of Jesus Tithing and Giving to the Poor Jesus’ Sabbath Dispute with Pharisees in a Cornfield
- Bar-Kochva Letters Biblical Prophecy Commentary Culture and Customs David Instone-Brewer Dead Sea Scrolls Disciples and Discipleship Gospel of John Gospel of Matthew History Holidays and Calendar Josephus and His Writings Messiah and Messianism Miracles and Miracle Workers Numismatics Passion Narratives Pharisees Political Issues Priest and Priesthood Rabbinic Literature Rulers and Administrators Sadducees The Four Gospels Links with Tabernacles and Hanukkah in the Gospel Accounts of Palm Sunday
- Biblical Theology Culture and Customs David Instone-Brewer Epistle of Romans Epistles of Paul Halachah Paul and His Writings Philo Priest and Priesthood Rabbinic Literature Temple Rabbinic Reflections on Living Sacrifices at Romans 12:1
Welcome to JP (that's our site's nickname). Our work is centered on better understanding Jesus' life and teachings, together with the language, land and culture of his day.
If you are new to the site, please read the "Welcome to Our Site" page. We've created it to help orient you to the many features our site offers.
[Historical Proof That America Is A Christian Nation!]
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. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation. 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 ocean will be discovered,” etc. The first colonial grant, that made to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584, was from “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 intended 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. The celebrated compact made by the pilgrims in the Mayflower, 1620, recites:
“Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour 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 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 Conectecotte and the Lands thereunto adjoining And well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of 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 cojoin ourselves to be as one Public state or Comonwealth, and do, for ourselves and our Successors and such as shall be adjoined to us at any time hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation together, to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus who we now profess, as also the discipline of the Churches, who according to the truth of the said gospel is now practiced amongst us.”
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,”
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 these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare,”
“And for the 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 forty-four 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 wellbeing 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,”
It may be only in the familiar requisition that all officers shall take an oath closing with the declaration, “so help me God.” It may be in clauses like that of the Constitution of Indiana, 1816, Art. XI, section 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.” Or in provisions such as are found in Articles 36 and 37 of the declaration of 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 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 of 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 1st of the Constitution of Massachusetts, 1780:
“It is the right as well as the duty of all men 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 provision 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 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, A. B., do profess 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 I, Section 7, a provision common to many constitutions, that the executive shall have ten days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill.
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. While, because of a general recognition of this truth, the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Commonwealth, 11 S. andamp R. 394, 400, it was decided that
“Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania . . . 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 these doctrines is 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 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 Mahomet or of the Grand Lama, and for this plain reason, that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors.”
And in the famous case of Vidal v. Girard’s Executors, 2 How. 127, 43 U. S. 198 , this Court, while sustaining the will of Mr. Girard, with its provision for the creation of a college into which no minister should be permitted to enter, observed: “It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania.”
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 and 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 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, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. 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?
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. 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 broad the language of the statute may be, the act, although within the letter, is not within 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 this opinion. 
Thirteen years after this landmark decision, Justice Brewer penned this small book that amplified what he meant when he and the court declared that America was a Christian nation. Going beyond the historical influences of Christianity in the establishment and development of America as he did in the Holy Trinity vs. United States decision, Justice Brewer boldly called the nation to continue to allow the influences of biblical Christianity to inform all of America life.
This small book is not only a summary of the historical evidence of Christianity’s influence upon the founding of America, but is also Justice Brewer’s advocacy of the cause of Christ for America and the world. In his first chapter, Justice Brewer further explains the Christian founding of America. His second chapter explains the Christian duty of citizens to America to ensure the advancement of the nation under biblical and Christian principles. He argues that civilization is dependent upon the advocacy of Christianity, and to the degree that citizens are willing to advocate these principles, to that degree they and the nation will be blessed. Finally, Justice Brewer argues that the world will be blessed, not primarily through material advances, but through allegiance to the principles of Christ that transforms the individual, the family, the nation, and the world.
For decades, Supreme Court justices have usurped the legal and moral foundation of America. Supreme Court Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia, an outspoken critic of his colleagues and judicial activism, has argued that courts no longer base their decisions upon America’s Christian moral and legal foundation. Indeed, liberal judicial activism has set American law upon a completely new course that leads away from the Christian principles of the Founding Fathers and should, therefore, be regarded as usurpation. Since as early as the 1940s, the voice of the American people at the ballot box has been increasingly muted by a comparatively small group of social engineers—the liberal activist judges. To understand the mindset of the American court prior to late-twentieth-century judicial activism, get your copy of Justice David Brewer’s book, The United States a Christian Nation.
To help communicate the truth of this article to a larger number of individuals, it has been summarized into the form(s) listed below. This enables our readers to help circulate it within their churches, businesses, or other organizations. In this way, family, friends, and other acquaintances are presented with the truth concerning America's Christian origin and the positive influence it has sustained upon the nation and the world. The form(s) in which this article has been summarized is described below.
Distribute this article: An abbreviated form of this article has been prepared in the form of a tri-fold "bulletin," allowing our users to easily circulate it to family, friends, and other acquaintances. Individuals, businesses, organizations, and churches may download a PDF copy to print and distribute. To secure your tri-fold bulletin copy of " Supreme Court Declares America a Christian Nation ," please click the button below.
Letter to the Editor: Our "Letter to the Editor" places a simple tool of information in the hands of Christians. Churches, businesses, individuals, and various organizations may print these letters in local papers, church periodicals, or other media outlets. To secure your letter to the editor for " Supreme Court Declares America a Christian Nation ," please click the button below.
David J. Brewer
Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.
David J. Brewer, in full David Josiah Brewer, (born June 20, 1837, Smyrna, Ottoman Empire [now İzmir, Turkey]—died March 28, 1910, Washington, D.C., U.S.), U.S. Supreme Court justice from 1889 to 1910.
Brewer’s parents, American missionaries in Turkey, returned to the United States after his birth. He grew up in Connecticut, attended Yale University, and, after being admitted to the bar in 1858, worked as a notary public in Leavenworth, Kan. He served in various local judgeships (1861–70), on the Kansas Supreme Court (1870–84), and on the federal circuit court (1884–89).
In 1889 he was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Benjamin Harrison. During his 21 years on the bench, Brewer generally joined conservatives in resisting the trend toward an increase in the power and responsibility of the federal government. At the same time, speaking for the majority in the principal injunction case of the period, In re Debs (1895), he upheld the government’s use of the injunction against unlawful strikes. In a notable liberal departure, he wrote the majority opinion in Muller v. Oregon (1908), sustaining a state law that limited to 10 the daily working hours of women factory employees. From 1895 to 1897 he served as president of the commission appointed by Congress to investigate the boundary dispute between Venezuela and British Guiana.
This article was most recently revised and updated by Amy Tikkanen, Corrections Manager.
Educational Experience: B.A. in Bible and Cross-Cultural Communications: Arizona College of the Bible
M.A. in Biblical/Modern Hebrew and Hebrew Bible Translation: Jerusalem University College
Th.M. in New Testament: Biblical Theological Seminary
Post-graduate work in Ancient Near Eastern Studies: Baltimore Hebrew University
Ministry Experience: Missionary with Life in Messiah International (1990 to 2018) Pastor of Tikvat Israel in Holon, Israel (1991-1993) Lay Pastor of Victory Baptist Church (2010-2017) Associate Pastor Calvary Chapel Old Bridge (2018 to the present)
David grew up in rural Iowa before moving to Tempe, Arizona during middle school. While attending Grace Community Church in Tempe, AZ, David trusted Christ as his Savior and became involved in a small-group men’s Bible study. During that study, David came to understand the importance of discipleship in the life of a growing Christian. Wanting to serve in ministry, he attended Bible college in Phoenix. He immediately gained experience while serving as a missionary in Kenya with African Inland Missions. Having a deep desire to study the Bible in Israel, David and his friend worked 80 hours a week for two years to save enough money to attend graduate school in Jerusalem. He had the privilege of meeting his future wife Beth, who was also studying at the same school during a summer exchange program. They were married in 1989. Desiring to serve in full-time ministry, David & Beth took an assignment in a suburb of Tel Aviv to plant a Messianic church. Over the next 28 years, they continued serving in Jewish ministry in several locations around the US and Toronto, Canada. In 2017, they returned to the States to take care of Beth’s elderly father, and in 2018, David accepted an associate pastor’s position at Calvary Chapel in Old Bridge, NJ.
He has taught Hebrew, Greek, Bible, Theology, and practical ministry classes since the early 1980s at nine different Bible institutes, seminaries, and universities in Arizona, Montana, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ontario, Peru, and Israel.
“This Is A Christian Nation”- U.S. Supreme Court, 1892, Justice Brewer
This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation.
The commission to Christopher Columbus…(recited) that
‘it is hoped that by God’s assistance some of the continents and islands in the ocean will be discovered’…
The first colonial grant made to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584…and the grant authorizing him to enact statutes for the government of the proposed colony provided
‘that they be not against the true Christian faith’…
The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I in 1606…commenced the grant in these words:
‘…in propagating of Christian Religion to such People as yet live in Darkness…’
Language of similar import may be found in the subsequent charters of
that colony…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.
The celebrated compact made by the Pilgrims in the Mayflower, 1620,
‘Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith…a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia’…
The fundamental orders of Connecticut, under which a provisional government was instituted in 1638-1639, commence with this declaration:
‘…And well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union…there should be an orderly and decent government established according to God…to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess…of the said gospel is now practiced amongst us.’
In the charter of privileges granted by William Penn to the province of Pennsylvania, in 1701, it is recited:
‘…no people can be truly happy, though under the greatest enjoyment of civil liberties, if abridged of…their religious profession and worship…’
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
appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions…
And for the support of this Declaration, with firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor’…
Because of a general recognition of this truth, the question has seldom been presented to the courts…
These declarations…reaffirm that this is a religious nation.”
Justice Brewer continued inChurch of the Holy Trinity v. United States:
“While because of a general recognition of this truth the qestion has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, it was decided that,
‘Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law…not Christianity with an established church…but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.’
And in The People v. Ruggles, 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…
We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors.’
And in the famous case ofVidal v. Girard’s Executors(1844) this Court…observed:
‘It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania’…
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 and 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 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, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe.
These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume
of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances thatthis is a Christian nation…
We find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth.”
“Or like that in articles 2 and 3 of part 1 of the constitution of
‘It is the right as well as the duty of all men 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…
authorize…the several towns, parishes, precincts…to make suitable provision…for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality.'”
“Or, as in sections 5 and 14 of article 7 of the constitution of
‘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 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, A. B., do profess 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.'”
Justice David Josiah Brewer had served on the Kansas Supreme Court, 1870-1884.
President Chester A. Arthur appointed him a Circuit Court Judge, 1884, then a Supreme Court Justice in 1889.
Justice David Josiah Brewer was nephew of Supreme Court Justice Stephen J. Field, with whom he serve 9 years on the bench.
Justice David Josiah Brewer died on MARCH 28, 1910.
In his work, The United States-A Christian Nation, published in Philadelphia by the John C. Winston Company, 1905, Justice David Josiah Brewer wrote:
“We classify nations in various ways. As, for instance, by their form of government.
One is a kingdom, another an empire, and still another a republic.
Also by race. Great Britain is an Anglo-Saxon nation, France a Gallic, Germany a Teutonic, Russia a Slav.
And still again by religion. One is a Mohammedan nation, others are heathen, and still others are Christian nations.
This republic is classified among the Christian nations of the World.
It was so formally declared by the Supreme Court of the United States…”
Justice David Josiah Brewer continued:
“We constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world.
This popular use of the term certainly has significance…
In no charter or constitution is there anything to even suggest that any other than the Christian is the religion of this country.
In none of them is Mohammed or Confucius or Buddha in any manner noticed.
In none of them is Judaism recognized other than by way of toleration of its special creed…”
“While the separation of church and state is often affirmed, there is nowhere a repudiation of Christianity as one of the institutions as well as benedictions of society.
In short, there is no charter or constitution that is either infidel, agnostic, or anti-Christian.
Wherever there is a declaration in favor of any religion it is of the Christian…
I could show how largely our laws and customs are based upon the laws of Moses and the teachings of Christ
how constantly the Bible is appealed to as the guide of life and the authority in question of morals.”
David Brewer - History
David Brewer is a multi-instrumentalist who performs regularly with Scottish music trio, The Fire. He was a founding member of the legendary California Celtic band, Molly's Revenge, with which he performed for 20 years. He has been a special guest of the six-time Grammy winning Irish band, The Chieftains, and has toured with the Scottish super-group, The Old Blind Dogs. David's notoriety as an engaging and virtuosic performer has taken him on tours across the USA, the United Kingdom, Canada, China, and Australia.
David is known for his expertise in Irish penny-whistle, bodhran frame-drum, and primarily the Scottish bagpipes on which he is unarguably one of the most energetic and charismatic performers of the instrument in the world today.
In addition to playing with folk bands, David performs as a solo bagpiper for weddings, funerals, corporate engagements, graduation ceremonies, and other special events.
David works regularly as a studio musician and producer, and has recorded as a guest on over one hundred albums across all genres of music. Notably, he was a key musician for the sound track of the PBS documentary, &ldquoAndrew Jackson: Good, Evil, and the Presidency.&rdquo
David keeps a small studio of private students, and has taught at a variety of music camps including the Pebble Beach Piping School, the Silver Apple Scottish Fiddle Camp, the Lark in the Morning World Music Camp, and the Community Music School of Santa Cruz Celtic Music Camps.
David is the founder of the St. Andrew Academy Celtic Music Night Series and has been a guest lecturer on bagpipe history at the University of California, Santa Cruz.
David Brewer - History
Vice Admiral David L. Brewer III was born in Farmville, Va., and raised in Orlando, Fla. He is a distinguished graduate of Jones High School in Orlando, and received its Centennial Distinguished Alumni Award for Military Service in 1995. He is the son of Mildred S. Brewer and the late David L. Brewer II, both retired educators in Orlando, Fla. Vice Admiral Brewer is also the recipient of the Onyx Magazine state of Florida’s 2010 Lifetime Achievement Award. He is also the co-founder of the David & Mildred Brewer Foundation, which has provided scholarships and funding for empowerment programs for students and schools in the Orlando, Fla area.
His distinguished naval career began in 1970 when he was commissioned an ensign in the U.S. Navy by former Secretary of the Navy, the late Senator John Chafee (Rep.-R.I.). He was a member of the first graduating class of the first Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) unit established by the U.S. Navy at a historically black university, Prairie View A&M University, Prairie View, Tex. The Prairie View A&M University Naval ROTC building is named in his honor.
Vice Admiral Brewer served his country for over 35 years in the United States Navy. During his distinguished naval career, he commanded two ships, the USS Bristol County (LST 1189) and the USS Mount Whitney (LCC 20). During these two command tours, his ships won numerous awards for combat efficiency and community service. As a flag officer (admiral), he held numerous positions, including Commander, Amphibious Group Three, with 17,000 Sailors and a group of 17 ships, and Commander, Military Sealift Command, with a fleet of over 120 ships.
In 2006, Vice Admiral Brewer was honored with the Naval War College’s Distinguished Graduate Leadership Award – 10th recipient in the history of the War College at that time the Navy League of the United States Vincent T. Hirsch Maritime Award the National Defense Transportation Association’s Department of Defense Distinguished Service Award and, numerous other military and civilian awards.List of site sources >>>