Matters of the same kind as that which we have just indicated, and others, such as extravagance in dress, licentious or irreligious songs, improprieties during divine service, usury, frequenting of taverns and gaming houses,[187] drunkenness, debauchery, and other like offences were frequently brought before the consistory. It had nothing to do, or only indirectly, with political events, or even with measures for the suppression of the libertine party, for this was effected by judicial methods, and the consistory was not called upon to take cognizance of such matters. There is not a word about the trial of Servetus in 1543; the consistory had nothing to do with that proceeding. The only allusion that we find to it does not occur till a month after that odious act, November 23, 1543. On that day a woman, accused of frequenting a certain house, replied that she had only been there twice, the day after the supper ‘and the day _the heretic_ was burnt.’ The name of Servetus is not even mentioned. In this circumstance there is, perhaps, a hint for those who look upon Calvin as the principal offender in the death of the unfortunate Servetus. Assuredly he was blameworthy, and his whole age with him.[188]
If the consistory proceeded with severity against immorality and licentiousness, its activity was no less conspicuous in a charitable direction, and one favorable to the public liberties.[189] It did not forget that it was bound to protect the little ones who were oppressed, and all those who were in any misfortune. Calvin recalled the saying of Jesus Christ about those of his people who are brought low, and said, ‘If their insignificance give occasion to the world to fall upon them, they ought to know that God does not despise them. It would be a thing too absurd for a mortal to make no account of those who are so precious in the sight of God.’[190] The consistory used its influence with the council on behalf of reforms which were for the advantage of the people. It demanded a reduction in the price of wheat, improvement of prison discipline, and restriction of imprisonment for debt. It censured fathers who were too severe with their children, and creditors who were too exacting with their debtors. It was severe against those who held a monopoly, and against forestallers of food. It urged moderation in the citations made before the consistory, and desired that they should be confined to scandalous cases. Men have been heard at various periods, even men of the humblest class, lifting up their voices against Calvin and his consistory without any suspicion that they were insulting their own friends and benefactors. Was not the suppression of drunkenness, of immorality, of gaming-houses, of quarrelling, and other evils of the like kind a benefit, and a very great benefit to the people? One who has set forth in the most accurate and impartial manner the proceedings of the consistory has said, ‘We must not, indeed, expect absolute impartiality nor abundance of good nature in the face of the resistance which was offered to the consistory; nevertheless, the facts speak, and are all in favor of the reformers.’[191]