ade 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.

So had Zurich looked upon the matter from the beginning. So was it now
regarded by Bern, with a more decided purpose not to surrender the
principle involved. From this time forth two parties began to form
themselves in our country, who were diametrically opposed in their
views of the nature and obligations of the Articles of Confederacy. The
question at first by no means took the same shape as it did in later
times: Shall only _one_ ecclesiastical system, or several, be allowed
within the limits of a single state? much less that which it now holds
in America: Shall the state not concern itself at all about the
religious creed of its citizens? Religion and politics, church an