[175] Cosen, An Apologie, etc., 64.  As has been above stated, an excommunicate could not attend service.  P. 47 supra.

[176] According to 23 Eliz. c. i, sec. 4 and sec. 6.

[177] See A.P.C., xiii, 271-2 (1581).  Cardwell, Doc.  Ann., i, 406 (Whitgift alludes to the “waywardnes” of juries).

[178] Not suspension from office (as might be supposed) but from service and sacraments.

[179] P. 19, note 33, supra.

[180] Hale, Crim.  Prec., 150 ("Contra ...  Because he will not be churchwarden accordinge to the archdeacon’s judgment.”  Excommunicated. 1566).  Ibid., 162 ("Contra ...  Detectum that he obstinately refuseth to be churchwarden, notwithstanding he was chosen by the consent of the parson and parishioners.”  Excommunicated. 1576).  Cf. ibid., 183 (Presentment for refusing to be sideman), and ibid., 207 (Refusing churchwardenship).

[181] In equity specific performance is nothing more than the giving of an instrument transferring title after all has previously been done on both sides, but this, to complete the transaction.

[182] Denunciation “in many poyntes resembleth a Presentment,” Cosen, An Apologie (etc.), 70.  See his book for the modes of proceeding.  Cf. also Hale, Crim.  Prec., Introd., p. lviii.  In commenting on Archdeacon Hale’s book, which we have so often here cited (A Series of Precedents in Criminal Causes from the Act Books of Ecclesiastical Courts of London, 1475-1640 [pub. in 1847]), Sir J.F.  Stephen in his History of Crim.  Law in England, ii, 413, makes these observations:  “It is difficult even to imagine a state of society in which, on the bare suggestion of some miserable domestic spy, any man or woman whatever might be convened before an archdeacon or his surrogate and put upon his or her oath as to all the most private affairs of life; as to relations between husband and wife; as to relations between either and any woman or man with whom the name of either might be associated by scandal; as to contracts to marry, as to idle words, as to personal habits, and, in fact, as to anything whatever which happened to strike the ecclesiastical lawyer as immoral or irreligious.”

[183] The case of John Johnson in the official’s court in Durham city forms an excellent commentary on the whole system.  He was presented as suspected of incontinency.  After repeated citations and a threat of excommunication, he appeared, denying the charge and alleging that a churchwarden with others had falsely concocted it.  At the petition of an apparitor, who acted as public prosecutor, seven of Johnson’s fellow-parishioners were cited to swear not to the fact of his guilt, but to the general belief in it.  Articles were then drawn up upon which depositions were taken and published.  The case was adjourned repeatedly so that the many formalities of procedure might drag