CONVERSION

A change of heart and life from sin to holine . This change, when it takes place in a heathen or an infidel, comprises a reception and confe ion of the truths of Christianity: when it takes place in a person already baptized and a Christian in profe ion, it implies a saving and influential impre ion on his heart, of those truths which are already received by the mind and acknowledged with the lips. To the heathen and infidel conversion is absolutely and always nece ary to salvation. The baptized Christian may by God’s grace so continue in that state of salvation in which he was placed in baptism, (see Church Catechism ,) that conversion, in this sense, is not nece ary to him: still even he, day by day, will fall into sins of infirmity, and he will need renewal or renovation: and all these—the daily renewal of the pious Christian, the conversion of the nominal Christian, and the conversion of the infidel or heathen—are the work of the Holy Spirit of God on the hearts of men. Some persons have confused conversion with regeneration , and have taught that all men—the baptized, and therefore in fact regenerate—must be regenerated afterwards, or they cannot be saved. Now this is in many ways false; for regeneration, which the Lord Jesus Christ himself has connected with holy baptism, cannot be repeated: moreover, not all men (though indeed most men do) fall into such sin after baptism, that conversion, or, as they term it, regeneration, is nece ary to their salvation; and if a regeneration were nece ary to them, it could only be obtained through a repetition of baptism, which were an act of sacrilege. Those who speak of this supposed regeneration, uncharitably represent the orthodox as denying the nece ity both of regeneration and of conversion; because they themselves call these by wrong names, and the orthodox only proclaim their nece ity in their true sense. They who object to the expre ion Baptismal Regeneration , by regeneration mean, for the most part, the first influx of irresistible and indefectible grace; grace that cannot be repelled by its subject, and which must i ue in his final salvation. Now, of such grace our Church knows nothing, and of course, therefore, means not by regeneration at baptism the first influx of such grace. That the sins, original and actual, of the faithful recipient of baptism, are washed away, she doth indeed believe; and also that grace is given to him by the immediate agency of the Holy Spirit ; yet so that the conscience thus cleansed may be again defiled, and that the baptized person may, and often does, by his own fault, fall again into sin, in which if he die he shall without doubt perish everlastingly; his condemnation not being avoided, but rather increased, by his baptismal privilege. So that, in fact, we say not that any one is regenerated at baptism, according to the meaning of these words in the lips of our opponents. And if they will not admit that baptism is the Divinely appointed medium of regeneration in our sense of that term, what grace can they imagine so trifling as to comport with their views of that sacrament, and at the same time so lofty and e ential, as to be contemplated by Christ in the solemn institution of a sacrament; and in his declarations concerning the efficacy and nece ity of that sacrament; and by the apostles, and the whole Church, in their sense of the same matter, and their consequent practice? What approaches most nearly to that grace of their own imagining, which they call regeneration, is the repentance not to be repented of, and followed by fruits of righteousne to the glory of God’s grace, and to the salvation of the Christian, which we call conversion or renewal, and attribute to the same Spirit from whom we receive our new life at baptism; and which we hold to be as nece ary to the salvation of one who has fallen from his baptismal purity, (and who has not so fallen?) as we hold baptismal regeneration to be, and as they hold their supposed regeneration. Except in words, then, we and our opponents are more nearly agreed than is at first sight apparent; and if the choice of terms be the chief point at i ue, we have this to say for the expre ions which we use, that they are consentient, and even identical, with those which are used in the Scriptures; and that they are the same which the whole Church employed, until the days of certain founders of sects, called after their own names at the continental Reformation; so that they rest on the highest po ible grounds of Scripture and authority.— Poole. (See Regeneration .) CONVOCATION (see Synod .) is an a embly of the bishops and other clergy of each of the provinces of the Church of England to consult on matters ecclesiastical. As much is in these days said of convocation, and as many seem to think that a convocation must be holden to settle the disputes now unhappily prevailing among the clergy, it may be interesting if we extend this article, that we may supply our readers with a history of convocations. It will be abridged from the account given by Dr. Burn. That the bishop of every diocese in England, as in all other Christian countries, had power to convene the clergy of his diocese, and, in a common synod or council, with them to transact such affairs as specially related to the order and government of the churches under his jurisdiction, is not to be questioned. These a emblies of the clergy were as old almost as the first settlement of Christianity amongst us, and, amidst all other revolutions, continued to be held till the time of King Henry VIII. What the bishop of every diocese did within his own district, the archbishop of each province, after the kingdom was divided into provinces, did within his proper province. They called together first the bishops, afterwards the other prelates, of their provinces; and by degrees added to these such of their inferior clergy as they thought needful. In these two a emblies of the clergy (the diocesan synods and provincial councils) only the spiritual affairs of the Church were wont for a long time to be transacted: so that, in this respect, there was no difference between the bishops and clergy of our own and of other Christian churches. Our metropolitans and their suffragans acted by the same rules here as they did in all other countries. They held these a emblies by the same power, convened the same persons, and did the same things in them. When the papal authority had prevailed here, as in most other kingdoms and countries in Europe, by the leave of our kings, and at the command of the legates sent from Rome, another and yet larger sort of councils was introduced amongst us, of the bishops and prelates of the whole realm. These were properly national Church councils, and were wont to be held for some special designs, which either the pope, the king, or both, had to promote by them. But besides these synods common to us with all other Christian Churches, and which were in their nature and end, as well as constitution, properly and purely ecclesiastical, two other a emblies there were of the clergy of this realm, peculiar to our own state and country ; in which the clergy were convened, not for the spiritual affairs of the Church, but for the good and benefit of the realm, and to act as members of the one as well as of the other. Now the occasion of these was this: when the faith of Christ was thoroughly planted here, and the piety of our ancestors had liberally endowed the bishops and clergy of the Church with temporal lands and po e ions, not only the opinion which the political government had of their prudence and piety prompted it to take the most eminent of them into the public councils, but the interest which they had by that means in the state made it expedient so to do, and to commit the direction and management of offices and affairs to them. Hence our bishops first, and then some of our other prelates, (as abbots and priors,) were very early brought into the great councils of the realm, or parliament, and there consulted and acted together with the laity. And in proce of time, our princes began to have a further occasion for them. For being increased both in number and in wealth, not only our kings, but the people began to think it reasonable, that the clergy should bear a part in the public burdens, as well as enjoy their share of the public treasure. Hence our Saxon ancestors, under whom the Church was the most free, yet subjected the lands of the clergy to the threefold nece ity of castles, bridges, and expeditions. And the granting of aids in these cases brought on a emblies of the clergy, which were afterwards distinguished by the name of convocations. In the Saxon times, the lords spiritual (as well as the other clergy) held by frankalmoigne, but yet made great part (as was said) of the grand council of the nation; being the most learned persons that, in those times of ignorance, met to make laws and regulations. But William the Conqueror turned the frankalmoigne tenures of the bishops and some of the great abbots into baronies; and from thenceforwards they were obliged to send persons to the wars, or were a e ed to the escuage, (which was a fine or payment in money instead thereof,) and were obliged to attend in parliament. But the body of the clergy had no baronies, and holding by frankalmoigne, were in a great measure exempt from the charges which were a e ed upon the laity, and were therefore by some other way to be brought under the same obligation. In order hereunto several measures were taken, till at last they settled into that method which finally obtained, and set aside the nece ity of any other way. First, the pope laid a tax upon the Church for the use of the king; and both their powers uniting, the clergy were forced to submit to it. Next, the bishops were prevailed with, upon some extraordinary occasions, to oblige their clergy to grant a subsidy to the king, in the way of a benevolence; and for this, letters of security were granted back by the king to them, to insure them that what they had done should not be drawn into example or consequence. And these conce ions were sometimes made by the bishops in the name of their clergy; but the common way was, that every bishop held a meeting of the clergy of his diocese. Then they agreed what they would do; and empowered first the bishops, afterwards their archdeacons, and finally proctors of their own, chosen for that end, to make the conce ion for them. Thus stood this matter till the time of Edward the First, who, not willing to continue at such a precarious rate with his clergy, took another method; and, after several other experiments, fixed at last upon an establishment, which has, to a certain extent, continued ever since, viz. that the earls and barons should be called to parliament as formerly, and embodied in one house; and that the tenants in burgage should also send their representatives; and that the tenants by knight’s service, and other soccage tenants in the counties, should send their representatives; and these were embodied in the other house. He designed to have the clergy as a third estate; and as the bishops were to sit per baroniam in the temporal parliament, so they were to sit with the inferior clergy in convocation. And the project and design of the king was, that, as the two temporal estates charged the temporalities, and made laws to bind all temporal things within this realm; so this other body should have given taxes to charge the spiritual po e ions, and have made canons to the ecclesiastical body: to this end was the præmunientes clause (so called from the first word thereof) in the summons to the archbishops and bishops, by which he required them to summon such of their inferior clergy to come with them to parliament, as he then specified and thought sufficient to act for the whole body of the clergy. This altered the convocation of the Church of England from the foreign synods; for these were totally composed of the bishops, who were pastors of the Church; and therefore the bishops only were collected to compose such foreign synods, to declare what was the doctrine, or should be the discipline, of the Church. Edward I. projected making the clergy a third estate, dependent on himself; and, therefore, not only called the bishops, whom as barons he had a right to summon, but the rest of the clergy, that he might have their consent to the taxes and a e ments made on that body. But the clergy, foreseeing they were likely to be taxed, alleged that they could not meet under a temporal authority, to make any laws or canons to govern the Church. And this dispute was maintained by the archbishops and bishops, who were very loath the clergy should be taxed, or that they should have any interest in making ecclesiastical canons, which formerly were made by the sole authority of the bishops; for even if those canons had been made at Rome, yet, if they were not made in a general council, they did not think them binding here, unle they were received by some provincial constitution of the bishops. The whole body of the Church being thus di atisfied, the archbishops and bishops threatened to excommunicate the king: but he and the temporal estate took it so ill that the clergy would not bear any part of the public charge, that they were beforehand with them, and the clergy were all outlawed, and their po e ions seised into the king’s hands. This so humbled the clergy that they at last consented to meet. And to take away all pretence, there was a summons, besides the præmunientes clause, to the archbishop, that he should summon the bishops, deans, archdeacons, colleges, and whole clergy of his province. From hence, therefore, the bishops, deans, archdeacons, colleges, and clergy, met by virtue of the archbishop’s summons; to which, being an ecclesiastical authority, they could not object. And so the bishops and clergy came to convocation by virtue of the archbishop’s summons; they esteeming it to be in his power, whether he would obey the king’s writ or not: but when he had i ued his summons, they could not pretend it was not their duty to come. But the præmunientes writ was not disused; because it directed the manner in which the clergy were to attend, to wit, the deans and archdeacons in person, the chapter by one, and the clergy by two proctors. So that the clergy were doubly summoned; first, by the bishop, to attend the parliament; and, secondly, by the archbishop, to appear in convocation. And that the archbishop might not appear to summon them solely in pursuance of the king’s writ, he for the most part varied in his summons from the king’s writ, both as to the time and place of their meeting. And lest it might be thought still (of which they were very jealous) that their power was derived from temporal authority, they sometimes met on the archbishop’s summons without the king’s writ; and in such convocation the king demanded supplies, and by such request owned the episcopal authority of convening. So that the king’s writ was reckoned by the clergy no more than one motive for their convening. From henceforward, instead of making one state of the kingdom, as the king designed, the clergy composed two ecclesiastical synods, i. e. of Canterbury and York, under the summons of each of the archbishops; and being forced into those two synods before mentioned, they sat and made canons, by which each respective province was bound, and gave aids and taxes to the king. But the archbishop of Canterbury’s clergy, and that of York, a embled each in their own province; and the king gratified the archbishops, by suffering this new body of convocation to be formed in the nature of a parliament. The archbishop sat as king; his suffragans sat in the upper house as his peers; the deans, archdeacons, and the proctor for the chapter represented the burghers; and the two proctors for the clergy, the knights of the shire. And so this body, instead of being one of the estates as the king designed, became an ecclesiastical parliament, to make laws, and to tax the po e ions of the Church. But although they thus sat as a parliament, and made laws for the Church, yet they did not make a part of the parliament properly so called. Sometimes indeed the lords, and sometimes the commons, were wont to send to the convocation for some of their body to give them advice in spiritual matters: but still this was only by way of advice; for the parliament have always insisted that their laws, by their own natural force, bind the clergy; as the laws of all Christian princes did in the first ages of the Church. And even the convocation tax always pa ed both houses of parliament, since it could not bind as a law till it had the consent of the legislature. Thus the case stood when the act of submi ion (25 Henry VIII. c. 19) was made; by which it is enacted as follow eth:—“Whereas the king’s humble and obedient subjects, the clergy of this realm of England, have not only acknowledged, according to the truth, that the convocation of the same clergy is, always hath been, and ought to be a embled only by the king’s writ; but also submitting themselves to the king’s Majesty have promised, in verbo sacerdotii , that they will never from henceforth presume to attempt, allege, claim, or put in ure, enact, promulge, or execute any new canons, constitutions, ordinances, provincial or other, or by whatsoever name they shall be called, in the convocation, unle the king’s most royal a ent and licence may to them be had, to make, promulge, and execute the same, and that his Majesty do give his most royal a ent and authority in that behalf: it is therefore enacted, according to the said submi ion, that they, nor any of them, shall presume to attempt, allege, claim, or put in ure any constitutions or ordinances provincial, by whatsoever name or names they may be called, in their convocations in time coming (which shall always be a embled by authority of the king’s writ); unle the same clergy may have the king’s most royal a ent and licence to make, promulge, and execute such canons, constitutions, and ordinances, provincial or synodal; upon pain of every one of the said clergy doing contrary to this act, and being thereof convict, to suffer imprisonment, and make fine at the king’s will.” It was resolved upon this statute, by the two chief justices and divers other justices, at a committee before the lords in parliament, in the eighth year of James I., 1. That a convocation cannot a emble at their convocation without the a ent of the king. 2. That after their a embly they cannot confer, to constitute any canons, without licence of the king. 3. When they upon conference conclude any canons, yet they cannot execute any of their canons without the royal a ent. 4. That they cannot execute any after the royal a ent, but with these four limitations: (1.) that they be not against the prerogative of the king; nor (2.) against the common law; nor (3.) against the statute law; nor (4.) against any custom of the realm. The clergy having continued to tax themselves in convocation as aforesaid, these a emblies were regularly kept up till the act of the 13 Charles II. c. 4, was pa ed, when the clergy gave their last subsidy: it being then judged more advantageous to continue the taxing them by way of landtax and poll-tax, as it had been in the time of the Long Parliament during the civil wars. And in the year 1664, by a private agreement between Archbishop Sheldon and the Lord Chancellor Clarendon, and other the king’s ministers, it was concluded that the clergy should silently waive the privilege of taxing their own body, and permit themselves to be included in the money bills prepared by the commons. And this hath made convocations unnece ary to the Crown, and inconsiderable in themselves. And since that time the clergy have been allowed to vote in choosing knights of the shire, as other freeholders, which in former times they did not. And from that time the convocation has never pa ed any synodical act; and from thenceforth, until the year 1700, for the most part they were only called, and very rarely did so much as meet together in a full body, and with the usual solemnity. It is true that, during the remainder of King Charles the Second’s reign, when the office of prolocutor was void by death or promotion, so many of the lower house came together as were thought sufficient to choose a new one; and those members that were about the town commonly met, during parliament, once a week, had prayers read, and were formally continued till the parliament was di olved, and the convocation together with it. And in King James the Second’s time, the writs i ued out of course, but the members did not meet. In the year 1689, after the acce ion of William and Mary to the throne, a convocation was not only called, but began to sit in due form; but their resolutions came to nothing. And from thence till the year 1700 they were only called, but did not meet; but in that year, and ever since, at the meeting of the parliament, the convocation of the clergy has likewise been solemnly opened, and the lower clergy have been permitted to form themselves into a house, and to choose their prolocutor; nor have they been finally dismi ed as soon as that solemnity was over, but they continued from time to time till the parliament hath broke up, or been di olved. And now it seems to be agreed that they are of right to be a embled concurrently with parliaments, and may act and proceed as provincial councils, when her Majesty in her royal wisdom shall judge it expedient. In Ireland, the convocations of the four provinces a embled all together in Dublin; and were formed exactly upon the model of those of England; consisting of the upper house, consisting of the bishops; and of the lower, consisting of deans, archdeacons, proctors of the chapters, and proctors of the clergy of each diocese.—See Wilkins’s Concilia , iv. 496, and for the rules and privileges of the convocation, iv. 632. Mr. Stephens, in his Introduction to the Irish Common Prayer Book, (xxxvii. .,) remarks that, “In 1615, a convocation of the Irish clergy, formed after the model of the English convocation, a embled in Dublin. This seems to have been the first convocation ever held in Ireland. The clergy do not appear to have granted any subsidies, or ever to have claimed the right of taxing themselves.... In the reign of Henry VIII. there does not seem to be any reference of ecclesiastical matters to the convocation, nor any claim of exemption on the part of the clergy.” [He then quotes the preamble of 28 Henry VIII. c. 12.] “In the second year of Elizabeth a parliament was a embled, and no mention is made of a convocation, though acts with respect to the Church were pa ed. And in the third year of Elizabeth there was not any parliament, yet she signifies her pleasure to Lord Su ex, the lord lieutenant, for a general meeting of the clergy, and the establishment of the Protestant religion. This of course was an order to summon not a convocation, but the ancient synod of the clergy, which had the power of settling all matters concerning religion.... In Ireland the provincial synod had not been suspended, and by their consent given at three different times in the reign of Edward, ... the clergy revived the use of the English liturgy, and expre ed their conformity to the doctrine of the English Church.” There is, indeed, a pa age in the Manuscript Collections of Dudley Loftus, which has been adduced as proof of a convocation having been held in 1560: “This year was held a convocation of bishops at the queen’s command, for establishing the Protestant religion.” But he must have used the word convocation merely “to expre a meeting of the bishops, and would have adopted a very different phraseology to describe the meeting of the convocation.” See also Ebrington’s Life of U her, 38–40. As before observed, (see Church of Ireland ,) no provision whatever has been made since the Irish Union, for the a embling even formally of the convocation of the Irish province of the Church. Still it appears (vide 11 Parl. Reg. 164 and 274) that it was by no means intended that the Irish provinces should be deprived of their convocations. It was proposed on the 20th April, 1800, that the archbishops, bishops, and clergy of Ireland, should be summoned to sit in the convocation of the United Church. Mr. Pitt expre ly said, in proposing the amendment to this resolution, “that the prosperity of the Church of Ireland never could be permanent, unle it be a part of the Union to have, as a guard, power to the United Parliament to make some provision in this respect;” i.e. convocation. “And afterwards,” he said, “it was judged better to omit the insertion of any provisional article respecting the convocation, till the Union actually took place.” This pledge has never been redeemed.—See an article on the United Church and its Synods , in the Law Review for Feb. 1851. In Scotland, by an act of parliament, 1663, an order was made for regulating the meetings of the national synod, or, as it is called in England, the convocation of the Church of Scotland; and an act was pa ed, That this synod shall consist of the two archbishops and their suffragans, all the deans and archdeacons, the fixed moderators, along with one minister of every presbytery, and one commi ioner from each of the four universities: That the synod, then constituted, is to meet at such places and times as his Majesty by proclamation shall appoint, and is to debate, treat, consider, consult, conclude, and determine upon such pious matters, causes, and things, concerning the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of this Church, as his Majesty shall, from time to time, under his loyal hand, deliver, or cause to be delivered, to the archbishop of St. Andrew’s, president of the said national a embly, to be by him offered to their consideration: That unle his Majesty or his commi ioner be present, no national a embly can be held: And that no act, canon, order, or ordinance, shall be owned as an act of the national synod of the Church of Scotland, but such as shall have been considered, consulted, and agreed upon by the president and major part of the number above specified.— Skinner’s Eccles. Hist. of Scotland.