To illustrate the diversities of opinion on this subject, and incidentally to show how difficult it is to present a well-balanced, symmetrically fair and just estimate of the monastic institution as a whole, contrast the opinions of four celebrated men.  Pius IX. refers to the, monks as “those chosen phalanxes of the army of Christ which have always been the bulwark and ornament of the Christian republic as well as of civil society.”  But then he was the Pope of Rome, the Arch-prelate of the Church.  “Monk,” fiercely demands Voltaire, “Monk, what is that profession of thine?  It is that of having none, of engaging one’s self by an inviolable oath to be a fool and a slave, and to live at the expense of others.”  But he was the philosophical skeptic of Paris.  “Where is the town,” cries Montalembert, “which has not been founded or enriched or protected by some religious community?  Where is the church which owes not to them a patron, a relic, a pious and popular tradition?  Wherever there is a luxuriant forest, a pure stream, a majestic hill, we may be sure that religion has left there her stamp by the hand of the monk.”  But this was Montalembert, the Roman Catholic historian, and the avowed champion of the monks.  “A cruel, unfeeling temper,” writes Gibbon, “has distinguished the monks of every age and country; their stern indifference, which is seldom mollified by personal friendship, is inflamed by religious hatred; and their merciless zeal has strenuously administered the holy office of the Inquisition.”  But this was Gibbon, the hater of everything monastic.  Between these extreme views lies a wide field upon which many a deathless duel has been fought by the writers of monastic history.

The variety of judgments respecting the nature and effects of monasticism is partly due to the diversity in the facts of its history.  Monasticism was the friend and the foe of true religion.  It was the inspiration of virtue and the encouragement of vice.  It was the patron of industry and the promoter of idleness.  It was a pioneer in education and the teacher of superstition.  It was the disburser of alms and a many-handed robber.  It was the friend of human liberty and the abettor of tyranny.  It was the champion of the common people and the defender of class privileges.  It was, in short, everything that man was and is, so varied were its operations, so complex was its influence, so comprehensive was its life.

Of some things we may be certain.  Any religious institution or ideal of life that has survived the changes of twelve centuries, and that has enlisted the enthusiastic services and warmest sympathies of numerous men and women who have been honorably distinguished for their intellectual attainments and moral character, must have possessed elements of truth and moral worth.  A contemptuous treatment of monasticism implies either an ignorance of its real history or a wilful disregard of the deep significance of its commendable features.