CONVERSION
348
CONVOCATION
said that on the whole the American people are soci-
ally tolerant towards converts. No wonder that in this
country conversions are comparatively more numer-
ous than in any other. In the British Empire too,
since the days of Catholic Emancipation in 1829, lib-
erty of conscience prevails in theory as well as in prac-
tice, although there exists both in England and Scot-
land an established Church. Catholic disabilities
have been almost entirely removed. Catholics are
only excluded from the throne and from a few of the
highest offices of the State. In Germany after the
Reformation the tyrannical principle cujus rcgio, il-
lius religio was proclaimed, in virtue of which the
sovereign for the time being could impose his religion
upon his subjects. He exercised the power both to
forbid conversions to the Catholic Church, and to
compel apostasy from it. In the present German Em-
pire, where nearly two-thirds of the population is Prot-
estant, liberty of conscience is the law of the land.
And although union of Church and State exists, con-
version does not involve any disabilities or the loss of
any civil or political rights. In some of the States,
however, the rights guaranteed by the empire are
somewhat restricted by State laws. Most of the
States prescribe the age before which conversions are
not lawful, which is either fourteen or sixteen, or even
eighteen. In Saxony, Brunswick, and Mecklen-
burg, the public exercise of the Catholic religion is
subjected to vexatious interference. In Russia
the Greek-Orthodox is the State religion, other
denominations are only tolerated. For long con-
version from the Orthodox Church to Catholicism
was followed by grievous disabilities. By the ukase
of 1905 certain rights and liberties were granted to
other denominations. The ]5ublication of the ukase
was immediately followed by the return to the Catho-
lic Church of many Uniats who had been forced into
schism by persecution. The Scandinavian countries
were very intolerant till about the middle of the nine-
teenth century. Denmark gave liberty to the Catho-
lic Church in 1849, Sweden and Norway in 1860.
B. GULDNER.
Conversion of St. Paul, Feast of. See Paul,
Saint.
Converts. See Counter-Reformation; Oxford Movement; Roman Empire; Statistics.
Convocation of the English Clergy, the technical name given in the Church of England to what corre- sponds in some respects to a provincial synod, though in other respects it differs widely from it. The two ecclesiastical provinces of Canterbury and York have each their Convocation, but that of Can- terbury is the more important, and is spoken of as "Convocation" par excellence. The history of its ex- ternal constitution is continuous down to the present time and is bound up with the development of Eng- lish constitutional history; its powers and inde- pendence, however, were lost at the Reformation; its organization, retained as a mere form for many years, has been utilized of late to give expression to the opinions entertained by the clergy as a body upon questions of the day. Thus it exercises influence, but has no power. The authority of the Crown asserted at the Reformation is still supreme and intact.
The history of Convocation may be divided into five periods: (1) Before 1295; (2) From 1295 until the Heforniation; (3) The Reformation period; (4) The jiost-Rcformation period; (5) Modern timas.
(1) Hcfore. 1205.— Vvcviona to 1295 the Church in England had assembled in diocesan and provincial synods to regulate disciplinary and other matters inter- esting the body of (he clergy. Moreover the archbi.sh- ops. bishops, alibots, and priors u.sed to take their place in the national council on account of the estates they held in chief (in rapilc) of the Crown. But
the beneficed clergj- took no part in it. The in-
creasing frequency of royal appeals for money
grants and the unwillingness of the bishops to be re-
sponsible for allowing them had brought Stephen
Langton, as early as 1225, to summon proctors of
cathedral, collegiate, and conventual churches to at-
tend his provincial synod, and gradually that repre-
sentative principle became part of the system of
Convocation. The failure of the irregular attempt
of Edward I to convoke the clergy at Northampton
led him to issue (1283) a writ to the archbishop
with a view to Convocation meeting in London in
that same year, and at that meeting a "benevo-
lence" was duly voted. Tlie form of writ used in
1283 is the same in form as that still in use, and the
instructions issued on that occasion by the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury, John Peckham, still embody
the existing constitution of Convocation, so that,
with the exception of the disappearance of the mon-
astic representatives, the external organization of
Convocation remains unchanged.
(2) ,4/;<'r 1S95. — In addition to the Baronage and Commons of the realm we find, after 1295, a represent- ative body of the beneficed clergy summoned to attend personally in Parliament, the summons being conveyed by the insertion, in the bishop's writ of summons to Parliament, of the pi'wmunientes clause. That sum- mons was the beginning of a new phase in the long struggle waged by the Crown on the suliject of the taxation of the clergy. It was to facilitate the ob- taining of money grants that Edward I endeavoured once more to unite representatives of the clergy and laity in one deliberative assembly, composed on the basis of temporal property. To have countenanced the attempt would have been to recognize the Crown's claim to tax church property, and the clergy insisted upon their constitutional right of making their money grants in Convocation. The struggle between the Crown and the clergy con- tinued until 1337, when the Crown gave way, though retaining the prcetnunientes clause in the bishop's writ of summons. Authorities dilfer as to whether the Parliamentary proctors of the clergy sat in the Lower House or in the L'pper House; most probably they sat and voted in the Lower House.
The question of the exact relation of Convocation to the newer Parliamentarj' representatives of the clergy is obscure; nor is the obscurity lessened by the fact that the proctors of the clergy for Convoca- tion were frequently the same persons as the proc- tors of the clergy for Parliament. Two opinions have found defenders: the first, that the older ec- clesiastical coimcil fused with the Parliamentary representatives of the clergy; the other, that by the process of gradual decay of Parliamentary repre- sentation of the clergy, part of their rights passed to the ecclesiastical councils, thus giving rise to the his- torical connexion between the Convocations and Parliament. The latter view, ably advocated by Stubbs, at present holds the field.
The division of Convocation into an Upper and a Lower House came about gradually, and was not formed, as is sometimes supposed, on the model of the two Houses of Parliament. In 1290 the mem- bers ot Convocation resolved themselves for delib- erative purposes into four groups: bishops, monastic representatives, dignitaries, and proctors of the clergy. Eventually Convocation came to open with a joint session presided o\-er by the archbishop, after which the bishojis and abbots remaineti to deliberate as the Upper House, while the rest withdrew to deliberate as the Lower House.
The objection of the clergy to sitting in Parlia- ment les.sened indeed their influence over that body; at the .same time they .secured the right of meeting when Parliament met, and that right of meeting in- volved the right of petitioning and to some extent
