The church courts of late Elizabethan and early Stuart England have often been portrayed as purveyors of outmoded or unwanted values. This book has argued the contrary case: many of the courts' activities were either in line with the existing attitudes and expectations of honest householders in the parishes (as in the pursuit of notorious sexual offenders), or represented a realistic attempt, normally supported by at least a section of local opinion, to nudge the mass of the people towards improved standards of morality and religious observance. However, the most vehement criticisms of ecclesiastical justice have been concerned less with its intentions than with its effectiveness: in the last resort, it has often been maintained, the church courts' endeavours were vitiated by lack of teeth. Such arguments have already been subjected to implicit criticism: in a multitude of ways, it has been shown, the courts did contribute to or reinforce important social processes. This chapter draws together the threads of preceding discussions by focusing specifically on the coercive apparatus of ecclesiastical justice and re-evaluating its efficiency. Certainly the courts were never able to achieve anything like 100 per cent compliance, and it is hardly surprising that idealists – whether contemporary puritans or modern commentators – should have judged them harshly. Yet in view of the magnitude of the courts' tasks and of the social structures in which they had perforce to operate, and in comparison with the levels of performance achieved by other contemporary tribunals, it is arguable that the ecclesiastical courts did remarkably well; their effectiveness should not be underestimated.