Definition
A charitable purpose recognized in early Anglo-American equity jurisprudence as a valid basis for sustaining a trust or bequest. The phrase describes a class of charitable object — the promotion, propagation, or support of Christianity within America — that courts of equity, drawing on English charitable trust doctrine, treated as legally sufficient to validate an otherwise uncertain gift. It sits within the broader category of gifts for religious purposes, itself one of the four heads of charity descending from the Statute of Elizabeth (1601).
In practice, the term appeared most often in litigation over devises and bequests where a testator left property to further Christian religion generally, without naming a specific institution or beneficiary. Courts had to determine whether such a gift was void for uncertainty or could be sustained as a charitable trust subject to enforcement by the attorney general or cy-près administration.
---
Common Confusion
This phrase is sometimes read as a purely theological or political declaration rather than a legal term of art. In the law of charitable trusts, it is neither a statement of constitutional aspiration nor an endorsement of established religion. It is a description of a charitable object — a purpose capable of being held in trust — governed entirely by the law of equity. It should not be confused with the Establishment Clause question of whether government may *promote* Christianity; the charitable trust doctrine addresses only whether private wealth may be dedicated to that purpose and enforced by courts of equity.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term belongs almost exclusively to the historical record of charitable trust law, with peak relevance running from the colonial period through the late nineteenth century. Researchers working in that window need to understand several navigational points.
First, the phrase tracks English precedent very closely. American courts deciding whether a bequest for the "advancement of Christianity" was valid charitable purpose almost invariably cited English Chancery authorities. The Rapalje & Lawrence entry, sparse as it is, points to 1 Ves. 243 — a reference to the Vesey Senior reports, almost certainly gesturing toward cases in which Lord Hardwicke or his contemporaries examined gifts for religious purposes. Researchers who cannot resolve what specific case is meant must consult the Vesey Senior volumes directly; the abbreviation "ICA" in the Rapalje entry is cryptic and may be an indexing shorthand for "in Chancery, America" or a cross-reference marker rather than a standard case reporter abbreviation.
Second, the constitutional environment shifted underneath this doctrine. Before *Watson v. Jones* (1872) and the gradual constitutionalization of church-state relations, American equity courts regularly administered trusts for the general advancement of Christianity without serious First Amendment objection. After the mid-twentieth century, and especially after *Everson v. Board of Education* (1947) extended Establishment Clause analysis, the landscape changed — not by abolishing religious charitable trusts, but by complicating state court enforcement of trusts that preferred one denomination or faith tradition.
Third, the cy-près doctrine intersects directly here. When a bequest for the advancement of Christianity became impossible or impracticable as written — because no specific recipient was named, or the named organization no longer existed — courts applied cy-près to redirect the gift to the nearest charitable analog. Researchers tracing the fate of such bequests must follow cy-près proceedings, not just the original trust instruments.
Fourth, jurisdiction matters: American states that retained equity jurisdiction administered these trusts; states that merged law and equity, or that had strong statutory charity regimes, may have handled them differently.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Rapalje & Lawrence provide almost no direct entry for this phrase. What appears in their dictionary under the relevant heading is a cluster of cross-references that suggest the editors treated "advancement of Christianity in America" as a term requiring citation rather than definition — directing the reader to 1 Ves. 243 for the device (devise) for that purpose, and cataloguing related advancement concepts (advancement in full, advancement pro tanto) with separate Peere Williams citations. The inclusion of *adventitia dos* in the same cluster is almost certainly an alphabetical accident of the original volume's arrangement rather than a substantive connection.
The absence of a full definition in Rapalje & Lawrence is itself informative. By the time that dictionary was compiled, the doctrine was established enough that practitioners were expected to know the head of charity and needed only the leading case reference. Researchers should not interpret the sparse entry as evidence that the phrase was rare or contested — it reflects editorial convention, not doctrinal obscurity.
No other source dictionary was supplied for this entry. Researchers requiring fuller historical treatment should consult Bouvier's Law Dictionary (various editions), which addresses charitable uses and religious purposes at greater length, and Perry on Trusts (American editions), which synthesizes the English and American case law on religious charitable trusts directly.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The validity of a trust for the advancement of Christianity as a charitable purpose was broadly accepted in American equity jurisdictions through the nineteenth century, but enforcement varied where state constitutional provisions imposed stricter church-state separation than the federal baseline. Some state courts imposed additional requirements that the purpose be sufficiently definite to guide administration. Cy-près availability likewise varied by state statute and judicial practice.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Law Mind Encyclopedia — Charitable Trusts
Law Mind Encyclopedia — Religious Purposes in Equity
Law Mind Encyclopedia — Cy-Près Doctrine
---