The syndics replied that, as the pulpit had been interdicted to Courault, and he had nevertheless preached that very morning, and had announced that he should continue to do so, they would not set him at liberty. The magistrates wished to see if this incident would furnish them with an opportunity of attaining the end which they had set before them. ‘Will you,’ they said to Farel and Calvin, ‘submit to the letters and ordinances of the lords of Berne? In that case we might restore to you your colleague.’ This bargain, which consisted in the release to them of an innocent prisoner if they on their part would do what they held to be wrong, appeared to the ministers a piece of shameful trafficking. ‘We will do, in such matters, what God commands,’ they replied. However, they were not willing to abandon their colleague. They offered to give bail, that he might under that guarantee be set at liberty. This proposition was a usual one in such cases, but the magistrates declined to accept it, and the reason which they gave for their refusal aggravated the harshness of the act. ‘Courault,’ they said, ‘is not a _citizen of Geneva_, and he is imprisoned _for contempt of justice_.’ The members of the council were thoroughly bent on getting rid of Courault, who was less prudent than his colleagues. It appears from authentic documents, that they even offered Calvin to wait, as to the question of ritual, for the decision of the synod of Zurich, if he would consent that Courault should be deprived of his office of preacher. This Calvin refused.[607] The petitioners withdrew, much pained by the severity of the council towards their friend, and some of the laymen, especially Lambert, complained aloud as they quitted the Hôtel de Ville. They spoke of ‘_false witnesses_ who had been examined; of _traitors_ in the general council; and it is well known,’ they said, ‘who they are.’[608] [Sidenote: FAILURE OF THE INTERVENTION.]