Page:History of Freedom.djvu/315

 NATIONALITY

27 1

of mankind. The scheme of a philosopher can command the practical allegiance of fanatics only, not of nations; and though oppression may give rise to violent and repeated outbreaks, like the convulsions of a man in pain, it cannot mature a settled purpose and plan of regeneration, unless a ne\v notion of happiness is joined to the sense of presen t evil. The history of religion furnishes a complete illustration. Between the later mediæval sects and Protestantism there is an essential difference, that outweighs the points of analogy found in those systems \vhich are regarded as heralds of the Reformation, and is enough to explain the vitality of the last in comparison with the others. Whilst Wycliffe and H us contradicted certain particulars of the Catholic teaching, Luther rejected the authority of the Church, and gave to the individual conscience an inde- pendence which was sure to lead to an incessant resistance. There is a similar difference between the Revolt of the Netherlands, the Great Rebellion, the \Var of Independ- ence, or the rising of Brabant, on the one hand, and the French Revolution on the other. Before 1789, insurrec- tions were provoked by particular \vrongs, and \vere justified by definite complaints and by an appeal to principles which all men acknowledged. Ne\v theories were sometimes advanced in the cause of controversy, but they \vere accidental, and the great argument against tyranny was fidelity to the ancient laws. Since the change produced by the French Revolution, those aspirations which are awakened by the evils and defects of the social state have come to act as permanent and energetic forces throughout the civilised \vorld. They are spontaneous and aggressive, needing no prophet to proclaiIn, no champion to defend them, but popular, unreasoning, and almost irresistible. The Revolution effected this change, partly by its doctrines, partly by the indirect influence of events, It taught the people to regard their wishes and \vants as the supreme criterion of right. The rapid vicissitudes of po\ver, in which each party successively appealed to the favour of the masses as the arbiter of