Wrong. The court indeed defined "natural-born citizen" using a near-verbatim definition as used by Vattel in Law of Nations. Read it. Learn it. Understand it. Below I underlined the key phrases from both definitions to show how closely they align.
From Minor: At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
From Vattel: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
The court used this definition because it rejected Virginia Minor's argument of being a 14th amendment citizen.
I really wonder how you anywone can keep peddling this. The Court specifically, in language already quoted here, acknowledged there was disagreement about whether that was the only class of natural-born citizen, rather than just a subset of NBC's. The Court acknowledged there was agreement by everyone that people born here of two citizen parents are natural born citizens (which is the part you quote), but that there was disagreement as to whether that was the only acceptable defintion. And the Supreme Court specifically stated that it was not reaching that issue in that case. For you to claim that the Court was determining something that it went out of its way to say it was NOT determining is blatant dishonesty.