Excommunication was of two kinds, the lesser and the greater. The
former was in constant use (to employ the words of a contemporary
document) "for manifest and wilful contumacy or disobedience in not
appearing when ... summoned for a cause ecclesiastical, or when any
sentence or decree of the bishop or his officer, being deliberately
made, was wilfully disobeyed...."[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 "the c