What anxiety, on the other hand, this disputation created among the Five Cantons, appears from their attempts to prevent it. Immediately after the resolution of Bern was made known to them, by her public proclamation, they called together a conference in Luzern, at which also Freiburg, Solothurn and Glarus were represented. A letter of warning was there resolved on. The Five Cantons believed, moreover, it should be drawn up, less in the name of their governments than in that of the Confederacy. From that very moment, when they began to fear, lest other states would likewise venture to unite with Zurich, their strenuous efforts were directed to the preservation at least of a majority of votes in the General Diet. In this they could not fail. They were sure of Freiburg, they counted on Solothurn, but Glarus they endeavored to secure by the same means which had proved abortive with Bern. Here, however, they seemed to succeed better. In fact, the general assembly of the canton handed over at their request a sealed promise not to separate themselves in matters of faith. In this posture of affairs, they held immoveably firm to the opinion, that whatever seven or eight out of thirteen states thought fit, should be considered the decision of the Confederacy. But our whole earlier history shows how varying the practice was in this respect, how single cantons, how a united minority of them often refused to acknowledge the resolutions of the majority; how differently the very Articles of Confederation themselves, and their right to enforce obedience were explained, or stretched, to suit particular cases. But, if ever it was their design to justify the political liberty of each individual member of the Confederacy, then surely it must be so in matters of religion, which are nowhere touched on in the letter of these Articles, whilst the dominion of one over the consciences of the others, is far less in harmony with their spirit.