The elders had the function of _overseers_, which is expressed by the Greek word ἐπίσκοπος. One of these was elected in each quarter of the town, _in order to have an eye everywhere_.[153] ‘They used to be accompanied,’ says Bonivard in his _Police Ecclésiastique_, ‘by the tithing-men (_dizeniers_) from house to house, asking of all the members of the household a reason for their faith. After that, if they think that there is any evil in the house, general or particular, they admonish to repentance.’ The consistory ‘met once a week, on Thursday morning, to see if there were any disorder in the church and to discuss remedies, when needful.’ Those who taught contrary to the received doctrine and those who showed themselves to be despisers of ecclesiastical order were to be called before it, for the purpose of conference and to be admonished. If they became obedient they were to be dismissed with kindliness; but if they persisted in going from bad to worse, after being thrice admonished, they were to be separated from the church.[154] Private vices were to be privately rebuked; and no one was to bring his neighbor before the church for any offence which was not notorious or scandalous, except after being proved rebellious. With respect to notorious and open vices, the duty of the elders would be to call before them those who are tainted with them, for the purpose of addressing friendly representations to them and, if amendment should appear, to trouble them no further. If they persisted in doing wrong, they were to be admonished a second time. If, after all, this should have no effect, they were to be denounced as despisers of God, and to be kept away from the Lord’s Supper until a change of life was seen in them.[155] We cannot deny, however, that the Ordinances were severe, and that men and women were summoned before the consistory on grounds which now appear very trivial. Consequently, this discipline has been spoken against in the modern world. But minds more enlightened do justice to Calvin. ‘Without the transformation of morals,’ says a magistrate of our own times, distinguished for his moderation and the fairness of his views, ‘the reformation at Geneva would have been nothing more than a change in the forms of worship. The new foundation which was needed for a perpetual struggle would have been wanting. Nothing less than the genius of Calvin, admitted even by his opponents, would have sufficed to inspire with enthusiasm and to transform a people, and to breathe into it a new life. In order to effect a religious revolution, as he understood it, the submission of all the outward actions of life to a severe discipline was necessary; but the burden of this discipline in the sixteenth century must not be estimated by the conceptions of the nineteenth.[156] In that age it would everywhere meet with the principle of obedience in full force; and it was lightened for all by the knowledge that no social position was exempted from its operation.’