In view of the fact that "standing excommunicate" 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, "be
punished for absence from diuine praier, neither shall his
excommunication excuse him, for it is in his owne default,"[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 "at their pleasure."[177]

But be this as it may--and it is conjecture unsupported by positive
proof--enough has been said, it is hoped, to show that ordinaries were
quite capable of making their decrees obeyed, and that excommunication
(contrary to the commonly received opinion) was a most effective means
of coercion. Many, indeed, were its uses. It might (or its equivalent
interdiction or suspension[178]), as has been seen,[179] be used to
compel a parish officer to perform the duties of his office. It might
also be employed, when persuasion failed, to induce a parishioner to
accept office when chosen by his fellows.[180] But, it would seem, one
single definition would comprise all cases: excommunication was
employed against all those who disobeyed some order of the spiritual
judge, express or implied--it was a summary process for contempt of
court, in fact, and was daily used as such.

To recapitulate: a very large part of the parishioner's life and