On April 22 the syndics set forth the facts before the Two Hundred, dwelling particularly on the subject of the bread, although the ministers had stated that that question had nothing to do with their resolution. The _bread_ seemed, therefore, to be merely used as a pretext. The syndics inquired of the Two Hundred whether they wished to adopt the ritual used at Berne. They replied in the affirmative. We have seen that the dominant party had obtained a majority in this council, and by what means they did so. The syndics next complained that the ministers had preached on Easter Day, although the magistrate had forbidden it, and they inquired whether they ought not to be committed to prison. The Two Hundred would not hear of imprisonment; but, with no less severity, they resolved to interdict the three ministers, Calvin, Farel, and Courault, from occupying the pulpit in the churches of the republic, and to order them to leave the city immediately upon the appointment of their successors. It is remarkable that, according to the Registers of the council, no mention was made either of the charges of licentiousness and blasphemy which Farel and Calvin had made in the pulpit, or of the refusal to celebrate the supper which had been the consequence. It is easy, however, to understand this silence. Those charges, were, undoubtedly, the most important fact in the conflict, and the magistrates, in omitting them, were straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel. Calvin said subsequently, but not with reference to this special instance, ‘Hypocrites, while they do not hesitate to give themselves up to indulgence in the grossest vices, are all the more austere and rigorous in matters which are of comparatively slight importance; and while they make pretence in that way of humbling themselves before God, they proudly insult him to his face.’[639] Licentiousness and blasphemy were very unpleasant topics, and on them the council was not at all inclined to dwell. Besides, had these grievances been spoken of, there must have been an investigation, evidence must have been taken, and witnesses called; and all this would have been very troublesome, and have taken a long time. Even if the government had commenced proceedings against the pastors, to punish them for making those charges, it is very doubtful whether they would have gained their cause, at least in the judgment of impartial men. It was a far more simple and expeditious plan to insist on this single fact, that preaching had been prohibited to the ministers, and that nevertheless they had preached. This required no proof, for all the town had seen and heard them. It is quite evident that it was on this ground they were punished. The council stood on its right, but it was assuredly a case to which the saying applies, _Summum jus summa injuria_.[640] [Sidenote: DENIAL OF JUSTICE.]