Upon this ground, according to Jesuit teaching, he is infallible in whatsoever opinion he expresses, because it is within the domain of both faith and morals. Hence, in the discussion of the question "When does the Church speak infallibly?" a recent Roman Catholic author of accepted authority says that, as the Church can never be "an unreliable guide, it follows that she can not err when she seals a religious order with her formal approbation."[158] Of course, no argument is necessary to prove that if the pope is infallible in establishing a religious order, he is equally so in abolishing and annulling an existing one, upon the ground expressed by Clement XIV, that the good of the universal Church and the cause of Christianity demanded it, and also upon the additional ground that the subject-matter is the same. This proposition can not be escaped by substituting assertion for argument. This same Jesuit author, Daurignac, is inconsistent. Seeming to forget that he had called the decree of Clement XIV a mere _brief_, which any of his successors could annul, when he comes afterwards to speak of that issued by Pius VII, he calls it a "_bull_," and frequently refers to it as such.[159] Having previously laid his foundation by insisting that Pius VII regarded the preservation of the Jesuits by the Emperor of Russia as "the interposition of Divine Providence in behalf of the society"[160]--that is, that Clement XIV had incurred the Divine displeasure when he abolished the society--he never loses sight of the idea that the decree of Pius VII bears the stamp of infallibility, and can neither be annulled nor modified. This is a subtle method of statement, but is without the force of argument. It is simply Jesuitical. These matters derive their present importance from the fact that they show how the Jesuits have become familiar with crooked paths. They show also the wonderful adroitness with which they have pursued these paths for many years, and how they have surmounted difficulties which would have overwhelmed any other body of men. As they have never been known, at any period of their history, to abate any of their demands or pretensions, they are to-day, as they have always been, a standing menace against every form of popular self-government and whatsoever else is the fruit of the Reformation. Their rules of conduct are still derived from the teachings of Loyola, who, accepted by them as occupying the place of God, they regard as higher authority than any human law or any Government where the sovereign power is guaranteed to the people. FOOTNOTES: [Footnote 145: Nicolini, p. 411.] [Footnote 146: Nicolini, p. 422.] [Footnote 147: Nicolini, pp. 424-425.] [Footnote 148: Daurignac, Vol. II, p. 191.] [Footnote 149: Nicolini, p. 432.] [Footnote 150: De Montor, Vol. II, p. 406. Greisinger, p. 653.] [Footnote 151: Nicolini, pp. 433-434. Greisinger, p. 665.] [Footnote 152: Memoirs of Prince Metternich. By Prince Metternich. Vol. I, page 262.]