of that which occasions pain and death to the animal-creation: and I shall show in what manner the Quakers argue upon this subject, and how they persuade themselves that they have no right to pursue such diversions, but particularly when they consider themselves as a body of professing Christians.

SECTION II.

Diversions of the field judged, first, by the morality of the Old Testament—Original charter to kill animals-Condition annexed to it-Sentiments of Cowper-Rights and duties springing from this charter-Violation of it the violation of a moral law-Diversions in question not allowable by this standard.

THE Quakers usually try the lawfulness of field-diversions, which include hunting and shooting, by two standards; and, first, by the morality of the Old Testament.

They believe, in common with other Christians, that men have a right to take away

7

away the lives of animals for their food. The great Creator of the universe, to whom every thing that is in it belongs, gave to Noah and his descendants a grant or charter for this purpose. In this charter no exception is made. Hence, wild animals are included in it equally with the tame. And hence, a hare may as well be killed, if people have occasion for food, as a chicken or a lamb.

They believe, also, that when the Creator of the universe gave men dominion over the whole brute-creation, or delivered this creation into their hands, he intended them the right of destroying such animals as circumstances warranted them in supposing would become injurious to themselves. The preservation of themselves, which is the first law of nature, and the preservation of other animals under their care, created this new privilege.

But though men have the power given them over the lives of animals, there is á condition in the same charter that they shall take them with as little pain as possible to the creatures. If the death of animals is to be made serviceable to men, the least they can do in return is to mitigate

This

their sufferings while they expire. obligation the Supreme Being imposed upon those to whom he originally gave the charter, by the command of not eating their flesh while the life's-blood was in it. The Jews obliged all their converts to religion, even the Proselytes of the Gate, who were not considered to be so religious as the proselytes of the Covenant, to observe what they called the seventh commandment of Noah, or that "they should not eat the member of any beast that was taken from it while it was alive*." This law, therefore, of blood, whatever other objects it might have in view, enjoined that, while men were engaged in the distressing task of taking away the life of an animal, they should respect its feelings, by abstaining from torture or all unnecessary pain.

* It seems almost impossible that men could be sɔ depraved, as to take flesh to eat from a poor animal while alive; and yet, from the law enjoined to proselytes of the Gate, it is probable that it was the case. Bruce, whose Travels into Abyssinia are gaining ground in credit, asserts that such customs obtained there. And the Harleian Miscellany, vol. vi. p. 126, in which is a modern account of Scotland, written in 1670, states the same practice as having existed in our own island.

"On

"On Noah, and in him on all mankind,
The charter was conferr'd, by which we hold
The flesh of animals in fee, and claim
O'er all we feed on pow'r of life and death.
But read the instrument, and mark it well,
Th' oppression of a tyrannous control

Can find no warrant there. Feed, then, and yield
Thanks for thy food. Carnivorous, through sin,
Feed on the slain, but spare the living brute !”

CowPER.

From this charter, and from the great condition annexed to it, the Quakers are of opinion that rights and duties have sprung up,-rights on behalf of animals, and duties on the part of men,-and that a breach of these duties, however often or however thoughtlessly it may take place, is a breach of a moral law. For this charter did not relate to those animals only which lived in the particular country of the Jews, but those in all countries wherever Jews might dwell. Nor was the observance of it confined to the Jews only, but it was to extend to the Proselytes of the Covenant and of the Gate. Nor was the observance of it confined to these proselytes; but it was to extend to all nations, because all animals of the same

species

species are, in all countries, organized alike, and have all similar feelings; and because all animals of every kind are susceptible of pain.

In trying the lawfulness of the diversions of the field, as the Quakers do, by this charter, and the great condition that is annexed to it, I purpose, in order to save time, to confine myself to hunting; for this will appear to be the most objectionable if examined in this manner.

It must be obvious, then, that hunting, even in the case of hares, is seldom followed for the purposes of food. It is very uncertain, in the first place, whether, in the course of the chase, they can be preserved whole, when they are taken, so as to be fit to be eaten. And, in the second, it may be observed that we may see fifty horsemen after a pack of hounds, no one of whom has any property in the pack, nor of course any right to the prey. These cannot even pretend that their object is food either for themselves or others.

Neither is hunting, where foxes are the object in view, pursued upon the principle of the destruction of noxious animals.

For

it