Thus, for instance, Prescott tells us: 

Terror, not love, was the spring of education with the Aztecs....Such was the crafty policy of the priests, who, by reserving to themselves the business of instruction, were enabled to mould the young and plastic mind according to their own wills, and to train it early to implicit reverence for religion and its ministers.

The historian goes on to indicate the economic harvest of this teaching: 

To each of the principal temples, lands were annexed for the maintenance of the priests.  The estates were augmented by the policy or devotion of successive princes, until, under the last Montezuma, they had swollen to an enormous extent, and covered every district of the empire.

And this concerning the frightful system of human sacrifices, whereby the priestly caste maintained the prestige of its divinities: 

At the dedication of the temple of Huitzilopochtli, in 1486, the prisoners, who for some years had been reserved for the purpose, were ranged in files, forming a procession nearly two miles long.  The ceremony consumed several days, and seventy thousand captives are said to have perished at the shrine of this terrible deity.

The same system appears in Professor Jastrow’s account of the priesthood of Babylonia and Assyria: 

The ultimate source of all law being the deity himself, the original legal tribunal was the place where the image or symbol of the god stood.  A legal decision was an oracle or omen, indicative of the will of the god.  The power thus lodged in the priests of Babylonia and Assyria was enormous.  They virtually held in their hands the life and death of the people.

And of the business side of this vast religious system: 

The temples were the natural depositories of the legal archives, which in the course of centuries grew to veritably enormous proportions.  Records were made of all decisions; the facts were set forth, and duly attested by witnesses.  Business and marriage contracts, loans and deeds of sale were in like manner drawn up in the presence of official scribes, who were also priests.  In this way all commercial transactions received the written sanction of the religious organization.  The temples themselves—­at least in the large centres—­entered into business relations with the populace.  In order to maintain the large household represented by such an organization as that of the temple of Enlil of Nippur, that of Ningirsu at Lagash, that of Marduk at Babylon, or that of Shamash at Sippar, large holdings of land were required which, cultivated by agents for the priests, or farmed out with stipulations for a goodly share of the produce, secured an income for the maintenance of the temple officials.  The enterprise of the temples was expanded to the furnishing of loans at interest—­in later periods, at 20%—­to barter in