human
[163] Even under the lesser excommunication a man could not attend service, and he was deprived of the use of the sacraments.[164] If an excommunicate sought to enter church with the congregation, either he had to be forcibly expelled or the service could not proceed.[165] If he continued in his contempt of court he made himself liable to the greater excommunication,[166] and then he was virtually an outcast from the society of his fellow parishioners.[167] That excommunication was feared by the great majority of parish folk there is no reason to doubt. Certainly the greater excommunication might seriously injure a man in his business as well as his social interests, not to mention the trouble and expense of getting an absolution.[168] That excommunication reduced most offenders to order the church court proceedings demonstrate. If, however, a man were obdurate and hardened he was turned over to the Queen's High Commissioners, and these, while making the fullest use of ecclesiastical procedure and the oath _ex officio_,[169] also freely employed the penalties of the temporal courts, viz., fines and imprisonments. As no ecclesiastical offence was too small for the Commissioners to deal with, and as their jurisdiction was not limited (like that of the ordinaries) to a district or a diocese, courts of High Commission may be called universal ordinaries.[170] Finally, if a person stood excommunicate over forty days, an ecclesiastical judge, on application to the diocesan, might procure against him out of Chancery the writ _De excommunicato capiendo_. This writ was probably not very often resorted to in practice, partly because of the great expense involved, and partly perhaps, too, because of the slack execution of the writ by certain undersheriffs or bailiffs, encouraged as they were by the rather hostile attitude sometimes assumed against the courts Christian by the Queen's temporal judges.[171] The writ was, however, certainly no dead letter, and served also _in terrorem_ to reduce stubborn offenders.[172] Indeed Archbishop Bancroft in 1605 called it
gpt
was in itself a presentable offence before the ordinary, and an offence often presented,[174] and in view of the further fact that the excommunicate might, according to a contemporary who writes with authority,
human
[175] it is queried whether such an involuntary absentee from church did not make himself just as liable to presentment at quarter sessions for recusancy[176] as any voluntary recusant. Perhaps it is for this reason that grand juries are sometimes complained of for discriminating among the names sent in to them on the bishops' certificates for indictment at quarter sessions, and for certifying some and throwing out others