Moreover, there is this consideration. In the few cases where there is the analogy of an admitted abuse somewhat tardily reformed, all in the Church ultimately accept the reform. But this is not at all the case with regard to the main orthodox doctrine--quite the other way. In every historical case of abuse, whether it be the erroneous acceptation of a false document (as in the case of the Donation) or an abuse of excess, as in the case of the exaggeration of image worship, the traditional forces of this Sacred Society admit the moral or clerical error, and usually they begin to admit it in increasing numbers from the moment of the first challenge. But in the case of orthodox doctrine it is not so. It is just the contrary. It is the doctrine that stands and the heresy which gradually dies out. Of specific heresies which have attempted to maintain but a part of truth while rejecting the rest, all without exception have gone through a process of rapid growth, culmination and decay, and nearly all have at last wholly faded. That is not true, of course, of pure scepticism. That we shall always have with us, for it is native to the human mind. A complete denial of the whole Catholic scheme, that is, a complete rejection of all that is unfamiliar and does not repose upon evident proof immediately acceptable to everyone; a denial of all mystery and especially of specific doctrinal affirmation, is as natural to man as breathing, for faith is of grace and is exceptional to Nature. But the heresies, as distinguished from such general rationalist denial, never have in them the vitality which continues to urge orthodox tradition. That is historical fact; and it is an historical fact which should give every man who is seriously examining these things grave food for thought. Take the example which is most familiar to the older members of the present generation in English-speaking countries other than Ireland: I mean, the attitude towards Holy Writ. Here heresy began by setting up the literal interpretation of Scripture (and the personal judgment of the reader upon it) in opposition to the authority of the Catholic Church. The Catholic tradition in the matter was that (1) Scripture was the Word of God; but (2) given us not as a record of science, or even History, so much as a witness to the Church and particularly to the Incarnation; and (3) was only to be accepted in the sense which the authority of the Catholic Church admitted. As against that ancient Catholic attitude towards the Bible came, as a novelty, the fierce affirmation of its absolute and literal authority and of its being plainly interpretable for himself by every reader. We are all witnesses to what has happened in that particular example.