Empire perish, with all the aid of a magnificent civilization; why did this civilization itself retrograde; why did its art and literature decline?  Why did the grand triumphs of Protestantism stop in half a century after Luther delivered his message?  What made the mediaeval popes so powerful?  What gave such ascendency to the Jesuits?  Why is the simple faith of the primitive Christians so obnoxious to the wise, the mighty, and the noble?  What makes the most insidious heresies so acceptable to the learned?  Why is modern literature, when fashionable and popular, so antichristian in its tone and spirit?  Why have not the doctrines of Luther held their own in Germany, and those of Calvin in Geneva, and those of Cranmer in England, and those of the Pilgrim Fathers in New England?  Is it because, as men become advanced in learning and culture, they are theologically wiser than Moses and Abraham and Isaiah?

I do not cite the rapid decline of modern civilized society, in a political or social view, in the most favored sections of Christendom; I do not sing dirges over republican institutions; I would not croak Jeremiads over the changes and developments of mankind.  I simply speak of the marvellous similarity which the spread and triumph of Mohammedanism seem to bear to the spread and triumph of what is corrupt and wicked in all institutions and religions since the fall of man.  Everywhere it is the frivolous, the corrupt, the false, which seem to be most prevalent and most popular.  Do men love truth, or readily accept it, when it conflicts with passions and interests?  Is any truth popular which is arrayed against the pride of reason?  When has pure moral truth ever been fashionable?  When have its advocates not been reviled, slandered, misrepresented, and persecuted, if it has interfered with the domination of prevailing interests?  The lower the scale of pleasures the more eagerly are they sought by the great mass of the people, even in Christian communities.  You can best make colleges thrive by turning them into schools of technology, with a view of advancing utilitarian and material interests.  You cannot make a newspaper flourish unless you fill it with pictures and scandals, or make it a vehicle of advertisements,—­which are not frivolous or corrupt, it is true, but which have to do with merely material interests.  Your libraries would never be visited, if you took away their trash.  Your Sabbath-school books would not be read, unless you made them an insult to the human understanding.  Your salons would be deserted, if you entertained your guests with instructive conversation.  There would be no fashionable gatherings, if it were not to display dresses and diamonds.  Your pulpits would be unoccupied, if you sought the profoundest men to fill them.