By The Rev. W. G. Clark-Maxweil. 21 
embraced the religious life, as it was called, and lived that life 
under a definite rule, and as members of an order; but the object, 
at any rate the theoretical object, with which that rule was embraced, 
was widely different. The monk sought, by retirement from the 
world, to win the favour of heaven for himself by self-mortification 
and religious offices, for his fellow-men by perpetual intercession. 
It was as though—in the earlier middle ages—men had delegated 
their intercessory functions to a particular class. The essence of a 
monk’s life was retirement; every time that he came out into the 
world, even when compelled of necessity so to do, he was abandoning 
his special function, and impairing his special efficacy. 
The friar’s object, on the other hand, was to help men in the 
world, to tend the sick, and to preach to the poor; these were the 
ends for which S. Francis founded his order. In such a work 
retirement is impossible, hence we can trace a characteristic 
difference in the sites of the houses of monks and friars. Where 
the former chose, and by preference, lonely and secluded spots, and 
devoted themselves largely to agriculture, the work of the friars 
lay of necessity in the towns and chief centres of population, where 
their service of ministry to the souls and bodies of men was most 
urgently needed and could be most effectually exercised. 
(3) As the monk’s life was the religious life in its contemplative, 
the friar’s in its active aspect, the relation in which the individual 
member stood to the house of his order was necessarily different. 
The cloister was the monk’s home, from which, when he had once 
entered it, he was to emerge as little as possible. It was to the 
_ friar, on the other hand, a place to which he retired at intervals for 
needful rest and spiritual refreshment, and whence he issued forth 
equipped with fresh energy for the task to which he had dedicated 
his life. Neither institution could keep absolutely to its ideal—the 
almonry and dispensary brought the monk in contact at least with 
suffering poor outside; the rest which the cloister afforded was a 
necessity for the overworked friar; but what was a means in one 
case was an end in the other. 
In all this I have been drawing an ideal picture ; and deliberately 
so, for I conceive that we can best understand the spirit of an 
