As to the authority of old ideas the contrary was true. The fundamental distinction of parties in modern states seems to rest upon a greater or less relative inclination to follow old paths or to enter upon new ones. Both institutions of the Ottoman state would in modern times be classed as strongly conservative, but of the two the Moslem Institution was by far the more so. Conservatism, in fact, was of the very essence of the Sacred Law. The early Turks had also loved their _Adet_, but not so much as to be unwilling quickly to adopt the new if they saw in it distinct advantage; the rise of the Ottoman power was, indeed, marked by the constant incorporation of new ideas, devices, and methods.[708] As the Moslem influence grew, however, changes became increasingly more difficult to make; and when they were made it was by the activity of the Ruling Institution, usually against the resistance or the inert passivity of the Moslem Institution. The fact that the Ruling Institution fought and governed while the Moslem Institution thought and judged was, of course, highly significant: the former embodied the active, the latter the contemplative, principle of the nation. Here again is involved a difference of Turk and Saracen. In the steppe lands the Turk fought, obeyed, and gave orders; after the fever of conquest was abated, the Saracen, under Islam, thought, preserved intellectual independence, and worshipped. With the two characters placed side by side, it was in the nature of things that in the long run muscle would be controlled by mind.