Nearly everything that is recorded about the early history of Alexandrian Christianity lies in the Church History of Eusebius. Many Alexandrian theological writings are preserved, but as might be expected they cast little light on historical events. Now the basic difficulty with Eusebius' work is that it has to be classified as “official history.” It therefore contains a judicious mixture of authentic record with a good deal of suppression of fact and occasional outright lies. He wrote it in defence of himself and his friends and their outlook toward the nascent imperial church establishment under God's messenger Constantine.

Historians generally have concerned themselves with the reliability of the Vita Constantini of Eusebius, while ignoring an important contribution of the panegyricist, namely, the image of Constantine he projects to his readers. This image, or the “Eusebian Constantine,” involves four major elements: (1) all success and benefit derive from the favor of the divinity; (2) only the pious receive divine favor; (3) the most important indication of divine favor for a pious ruler is military victory; and (4) with the victory secured, divine favor will produce peace and unity for the realm. Constantine, being close to Eusebius, helped to mold his own image which is more than a representation of the first Christian emperor—it is a key to understanding the nature of Eusebius' panegyric as well as his notion of Constantine's relationship with the Christian God.

Much has been written on the political behavior of the Stuart Church of England. And much too has been written on its monotonous reiteration of the divine right of kings' doctrine—with its ancillary ideas of passive obedience and non-resistance to the commands of authority. Indeed, for this perspective on the institution there exists abundant evidence: seventeenth century sermons and treatises were filled with “church politics.” Morever, Figgis' study remains indispensable: before, and perhaps even more clearly and vehemently after the Puritan Revolution, insistence on absolute obedience to existing authority—especially to the king—reverberated in the parish churches of England. Thus, at this point in time little doubt exists as to the political attitudes of clerics; and indeed a consensus exists also on the probable motives for those clerical attitudes: they followed unavoidably upon the second great conquest in English history, the conquest of the church by Henry VIII. But the church was not unwillingly conquered: it both bound itself and was bound to the destiny of the monarchy in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries—its newly-granted constitutional legality protected it while it nourished the hope that the Crown would act as sponsor of reform in Christian society. In a word, the institution of the church, keenly aware of both its relative impotence and its relative strength with regard to the monarchy, made the best of circumstances by offering virtually unqualified support to Stuart kingship, with certain unintended consequences for the church. Given this perspective, it is easy to understand why, apart from special problems and issues, the thought of Anglican clerics commands little attention today. But perhaps another view of clerical thought will yield as much or more understanding than the traditional perspective has so far yielded: it is the purpose of this essay to offer another view.

In recent years American historians have seriously challenged the early twentieth-century liberal interpretation of the American Revolution. It now seems probable that the revolution was “an elitist movement with only a modest amount of explicit striving among either the people at large or any of the dominant political factions for a wider diffusion of political power.” One of the persistent themes of the liberal view has been that of the striving for and winning of religious liberty. This topic easily lent itself to the epic of the “common man” combining against the aristocracy to force substantial social and political changes.Even the terms “dissenters” and “establishment” carried the emotional impact inherent in the interpretation and made the whole process seem self-evident. Just as the reexamination of the American Revolution as a whole has made possible a more plausible understanding of the events in America after the revolution, a reassessment of the events leading to disestablishment and the legal adoption of a policy of religious liberty could lead to a fresh understanding of the role of religion in American national life.

This article, which continues the survey, “Methodist Historical Studies 1930–1959,”, covers both British and American fields, includes the most significant literature, and emphasizes strong developments, but does not attempt exhaustive listing of all items, and does not deal with missionary and global aspects. Moreover, it does little more than recognize the addition of “United” to the title of the major denomination involved as a result of merger in 1968 with the former Evangelical United Brethren. This article deals with a historical movement, not a denominational category.