A conventicle originally meant "an assembly" and was frequently used by ancient writers to mean "a church." At a semantic level, conventicle is a Latinized synonym of the Greek word for church, and references Jesus' promise in Matthew 18:20, "Where two or three are met together in my name."
Over time, the term became linked to meetings of religious associations, particularly private gatherings for worship. Later, it became a negative term, implying that those within a conventicle opposed the ruling ecclesiastical authorities; for example, as applied to a plot of mutinous monks in a monastery.
Ultimately, this term has been applied to religious meetings of dissenters from an established church, held in places that were not recognized as intended for the exercise of religious functions. In this context, the state made a distinction between the forms of religion whose practices were authorized by statute, and those that were expressly prohibited. This usage has received legal sanction in Britain.
Jesus' disciples as conventiclers By one accepted usage of the word, Church historians assert that Christianity rose ecclesiastically from a conventicle. Such was the meeting in the Upper Room of the first disciples of Christ after the Ascension (Acts 1:13).
This gathering was the type that might take place for prayer, mutual edification, and memorial observances in private houses such as that of Mary, the mother of John (Acts 12:12). Within a short time, those gathered were deemed suspicious by Jewish ecclesiastical authorities, who branded the new faith as heretical, and sought to suppress these conventicles, one of their most zealous agents being the future Apostle Paul.
Conventicles in the early Roman Empire When Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire, it was at first tolerated and enjoyed government protection, along with many other popular cults. Religions had to receive a license from the state in those times. Largely due to political considerations, Christianity soon became suspect, and no longer encouraged. Its meetings thus became conventicles.
Historians have used the term to characterize such house meetings as mentioned in Col 4:15. In the succeeding century, the catacombs were the scene of Christian conventicles.
Conventicles in the later Roman Empire With the establishment of Christianity by Constantine as the state religion, all its meetings were legitimized. In the 4th and 5th centuries, the term conventicle could apply to the meetings of such Christian nonconformists as the Montanists and the Donatists, which were prohibited by the state under penalty of death. This policy was rigorously encouraged by the leaders of the churches enjoying state recognition and support. The 6th canon of the Synod of Gangra denounces conventicles.
Conventicles in pre-Reformation Europe In England, the word was applied to the meetings of the followers of Wyclif, who, thinking of regular clergy as incompetent, sent out wandering preachers to meet the spiritual needs of the people. Both the practice and the word conventicle were carried by the anti-Roman Catholic Lollards (as the most determined supporters of Wyclif were called) to Scotland.
England under the Tudors
It was not until after the Reformation that 'conventicle' gained a legal connotation: descriptive of the meeting place or assemblage for worship or consultation of those who departed from the Established Church of England. Queen Elizabeth, in her contest with Puritanism, supported the Act of Uniformity, which demanded that all subjects of the Realm must conform to the tenets of the Church established by law. Clerical nonconformity was punished by deposition.
As a result, many ministers were removed so that their places either remained empty or were filled by incompetent and unpopular substitutes. Many people disliked this, and gathered together for worship in private houses or other suitable places. These conventicles were, under that label, expressly declared illegal. The 11th Article of the Book of Canons (drawn up in 1603) censures "the maintainers of conventicles"; the 12th, "the maintainers of constitutions made in conventicles"; and the 73rd says: "Forasmuch as all conventicles and secret meetings of priests and ministers have ever been justly accounted very hateful to the state of the Church wherein they live, we do ordain that no priests or ministers of the Word of God, nor any other persons, shall meet together in any private house or elsewhere to consult upon any matter or course to be taken by them, or upon their motion or direction by any other, which may any way tend to the impeaching or depraving of the doctrine of the Church of England, or the Book of Common Prayer, or any part of the government or discipline now established in the Church of England, under pain of excommunication ipso facto."
Followers of Anabaptism, which had been spread in England by refugees from continental Europe, were ordered to leave. Even during the subsequent reign of Puritanism, Anabaptists were treated with dismissal by the Protector Cromwell, who disliked their aggressive fanaticism. There was some toleration for other persecuted sects, with only one or two exceptions.
In England, there were three acts of Parliament passed to coerce people to attend Church of England services and to prohibit unofficial meetings of laypeople:
The Religion Act 1592, stated to last for just one parliament, called for imprisonment without bail of those over the age of sixteen who failed to attend church, who persuaded others to do the same, who denied Her Majesty's authority in ecclesiastical matters, and who attended unlawful religious conventicles.
The Conventicle Act 1664 forbade conventicles of five or more people, other than an immediate family, from meeting in religious assemblies outside the auspices of the Church of England. This law was part of the Clarendon Code, named for Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon, which aimed to discourage nonconformism and to strengthen the position of the Established Church.
The Conventicles Act 1670 imposed a fine of five shillings for the first offense and ten shillings for a second offense on any person who attended a conventicle (any religious assembly other than the Church of England). Any preacher or person who allowed his house to be used as a meeting house for such an assembly could be fined 20 and 40 shillings for a second offense.
England under the Stuarts After the Restoration of the Stuart dynasty, established Episcopacy under Charles II turned intolerant once again. An Act of Uniformity was passed in 1662, which endorsed the expulsion of any clergyman who refused to subscribe to everything contained in the Book of Common Prayer and to the doctrine of the King's religious supremacy, and held by the Solemn League and Covenant of 1643, banning such a clergyman from exercising religious functions in private houses. In one day, two thousand clergymen were ejected from the church for these reasons. In 1664, a statute called 'the Conventicle Act' made illegal any gathering in a private house for religious worship attended by a number exceeding five the regular members of the household, under penalty of fine, imprisonment, or transportation. A second version of this Act deprived the outed ministers of the right of trial by jury. The updated law empowered any justice of the peace to convict the ministers on the oath of a single informer, who was to be rewarded with a third of all fines collected. Many nonconformists were arrested.
Samuel Pepys, in his diary of August 7, 1664, observes: 'I saw several poor creatures carried by, by constables, for being at conventicles ... I would to God they would conform.' He refers to Quakers, one of the most targeted groups of the Acts. Bishop Burnet, in his History of his own Time, describes how the Quakers resolutely declined to obey the law, and fearlessly continued their prohibited meetings. Quakers would even gather in the street before their boarded-up meeting houses. Their children, who might not be arrested, would also hold conventicles in the street without their jailed parents, putting up with the taunts of unsympathetic onlookers.
Scotland under the Stuarts The people of Scotland had many reactions to the persecution of Presbyterian Christianity under James VII and Charles I. Scottish ministers did not see complete separation from the Church of Scotland as an option.
Measures were taken under Charles II to suppress Presbyterianism in Scotland, where it had been the dominant form of religion since the Reformation. From 1662 to 1678, various Acts were passed by the Privy Council and the Court of High Commission, prohibiting conventicles and imposing severe penalties upon participants. It was forbidden to supply denounced persons with meat or drink or give them any aid. When these laws failed to stop the practice, next steps invoked capital punishment. Military leaders, and even common soldiers, were given authority to immediately execute dissidents without the formality of a legal trial. This authority was used without mercy, one example being Claverhouse.
The bulk of the religious population in the south and southwest continued to attend the conventicles of the outed ministers. Where the congregation was too large for a private house, they used barns or granaries. Thousands sometimes flocked to these illegal gatherings. The result was the creation of field conventicles — meetings held under cover of night, in the open air, on moors or hills, in glens and ravines, or wherever safety and suitability could be combined. These gatherings frequently lasted for hours. At such conventicles, ordinances of the Presbyterian Church were observed. Baptism was administered, and Communion was dispensed, often to mass groups of people, the rite taking days to celebrate and several ministers officiating in turn. When capital punishment was added to the list of punishments, worshipers arrived with whatever means of self-defense they could find — scythes, flails, etc.
A Presbyterian theology covering conventicles and armed resistance to tyranny is given in Alexander Shields' work A Hind let Loose. Shields discusses the day's fundamental social, political, and ecclesiastical questions. These include (i) hearing of curates, (ii) owning of tyrants’ authority, (iii) unlawful imposed oaths, (iv) field meetings, (v) defensive arms vindicated, (vi) the extraordinary execution of judgment by private persons, and (vii) refusing to pay wicked taxations vindicated. The last-named section was added, Shields says, as an afterthought.
Royalist soldiers, aided by spies and informers, often infiltrated these meetings. One of these attacks let to the Battle of Drumclog, 11 June 1679, which issued in the only victory gained by the Covenanters (upholders of Presbyterianism), and the only defeat sustained by Claverhouse ('Bonnie Dundee'), the most zealous of their military persecutors. During the years of persecution culminating in the 'Killing Times,' it is estimated that some 18,000 people suffered in some way for attending these conventicles.
Conventicles of believers in Reform were held in Scotland in the 1500s and are considered instrumental in the movement that drove the French regent Mary of Guise from power. From 1660 to the 1688 Revolution, conventicles were usually held by Covenanters opposed to Charles II's forced imposition of Episcopalian government on the established Church of Scotland.
To protect the Presbyterian polity and Calvinist doctrine of the Church of Scotland, the pre-Restoration government of Scotland signed the 1650 Treaty of Breda with King Charles II to crown him king and support him against the English Parliamentary forces. At his Restoration in 1660, the King immediately renounced the terms of the Treaty and his Oath of Covenant, which the Scottish Covenanters saw as a betrayal.