By The Rev. W. G. Clark-Maxwell 



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, 

 I was widely different. The monk sought, by retirement from the 

 \ world, to win the favour of heaven for himself by self-mortification 

 I and religious offices, for his fellow-men by perpetual intercession. 

 It was as though — in the earlier middle ages — men had delegated 

 i 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 leasl with 

 jsuffering poor outside; the rest which the cloister afforded was a 

 necessity for the overworked friar; but what was a menus 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 spuii of an 



