669. The custom of offering human sacrifices dates from the remotest antiquity. How can mankind have been led to believe that such an enormity could be pleasing to God?

"In the first place, through their not having comprehended God as being the source of all goodness. Among primitive peoples, matter predominates over spirit. Their moral qualities not being yet developed, they give themselves up to the instincts of brutality. In the next place, the men of the primitive periods naturally considered that a living creature must be much more valuable in the sight of God than any merely material object; and this consideration led them to immolate, to their divinities, first animals, and afterwards men, because, according to their false ideas, they thought that the value of a sacrifice was proportioned to the importance of the victim. In your earthly life, when you wish to offer a present to any one, you select a gift, the costliness of which is proportioned to the amount of attachment or consideration that you desire to testify to the person to whom you offer it. It was natural that men who were ignorant of the nature of the Deity should do the same."

– The sacrificing of animals, then, preceded that of human beings?

"Such was undoubtedly the case."

– According to this explanation, the custom of sacrificing human beings did not originate in mere cruelty?

"No; but in a false idea as to what would be acceptable to God. Look, for instance, at the story of Abraham. In later times men have still farther debased this false idea by immolating their enemies, the objects of their own personal animosity. But God has never exacted sacrifices of any kind; those of animals, no more than those of men. He could not be honoured by the useless destruction of His own creations."

670. Have human sacrifices, when offered with a pious intention, ever been pleasing to God."

"No, never; but God always weighs the intention which dictates any act. Men, being ignorant, may have believed that they were performing a laudable deed in immolating their fellow-beings; and, in such a case, God would accept their intention, but not their deed. The human race, in working out its own amelioration, naturally came to recognise its error, and to abominate the idea of sacrifices that ought never to have entered into enlightened minds. I say 'enlightened,' because, however dense the veil of materiality in which they were enveloped, their free-will sufficed, even then, to give them a glimmering perception of their origin and their destiny, and many among them already understood, by intuition, the wickedness they were committing, but which they none the less accomplished for the gratification of their passions."

671. What should be thought of the wars styled "religious?" The sentiment that induces a nation of fanatics to exterminate the greatest possible number of those who do not share their belief, with a view to rendering themselves acceptable to God, would seem to proceed from the same source as that which formerly led them to immolate their fellow-creatures as sacrifices.

"Such wars are stirred up by evil spirits; and the men who wage them place themselves in direct opposition to the will of God, which is, that each man should love his brother as himself. Since all religions, or rather all peoples, worship the same God, whatever the name by which they call Him, why should one of them wage a war of extermination against another, simply because its religion is different, or has not yet reached the degree of enlightenment arrived at by the aggressor? Not to believe the word of Him who was sent by God and animated by His spirit is excusable on the part of peoples who neither saw Him nor witnessed the acts performed by Him; and, at all events, how can you hope that they will hearken to His message of peace, when you try to force it upon them by fire and sword? It is true that they have to be enlightened, and that it is your duty to endeavour to teach them the doctrine of Christ; but this must be done by persuasion and gentleness; not by violence and bloodshed. The greater number among you do not believe in the communication we have with certain mortals; how could you expect that strangers should believe your assertions in regard to this fact, if your acts belied the doctrine you profess?"

672. Was the offering of the fruits of the earth more acceptable in the sight of God than the sacrificing of animals?

"It must evidently be more agreeable to God to be worshipped by the offering of the fruits of the earth, than by that of the blood of victims. But I have already answered your question in telling you that God's judgement is directed to the intention, and that the outward fact is of little importance in His sight. A prayer, sent up from the depths of the heart, is a hundredfold more agreeable to God than all the offerings you could possibly make to Him. I repeat it, the intention is everything; the fact, nothing."

673. Might not these offerings be rendered more agreeable to God by consecrating them to the relief of those who lack the necessaries of life, and, in that case, might not the sacrificing of animals, accomplished in view of a useful end, be as meritorious as it is the reverse when subserving no useful end, or profiting only to those who are in need of nothing? Would there not be something truly pious in consecrating to the poor the first-fruits of all that God grants to us upon the earth?

"God always blesses those who do good; to succour the poor and afflicted is the best of all ways of honouring Him. I do not mean to say that God disapproves of the ceremonies you employ in praying to Him; but a good deal of the money thus spent might be more usefully employed. God loves simplicity in all things. The man who attaches more importance to externals than to the heart is a narrow-minded spirit; how, then, could it be possible for God to regard a form as of any importance in comparison with the sentiment of which it is the expression?"