It would even seem to be indicated, by all the trend of historic facts, that cannibalism--gross, repulsive, inhuman cannibalism--had its basis in man’s perversion of this outreaching of his nature (whether that outreaching were first directed by revelation, or by divinely given innate promptings) after inter-union and inter-communion with God; after life in God’s life, and after growth through the partaking of God’s food, or of that food which represents God. The studies of many observers in widely different fields have led both the rationalistic and the faith-filled student to conclude, that in _their_ sphere of observation it was a religious sentiment, and not a mere animal craving,--either through a scarcity of food, or from a spirit of malignity,--that was at the bottom of cannibalistic practices there; even if that field were an exception to the world’s fields generally. And now we have a glimpse of the nature and workings of that religious sentiment which prompted cannibalism wherever it has been practised. Man longed for oneness of life with God. Oneness of life could come only through oneness of blood. To secure such oneness of life, man would give of his own blood, or of that substitute blood which could best represent himself. Counting himself in oneness of life with God, through the covenant of blood, man has sought for nourishment and growth through partaking of that food which in a sense was life, and which in a larger sense gave life, because it was the food of God, and because it was the food which stood for God. In misdirected pursuance of this thought, men have given the blood of a consecrated human victim to bring themselves into union with God; and then they have eaten of the flesh of that victim which had supplied the blood which made them one with God. This seems to be the basis of _fact_ in the premises; whatever may be the understood _philosophy_ of the facts. _Why_ men reasoned thus, may indeed be in question. _That_ they reasoned thus, seems evident.