It must be obvious then, that hunting, even in the case of hares, is seldom followed for the purposes of food.  It is 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 objects in view, pursued upon the principle of the destruction of noxious animals.  For it may be observed, that rewards are frequently offered to those, who will procure them for the chase:  that large woods or covers are frequently allotted them, that they may breed, and perpetuate their species for the same purposes, and that a poor man in the neighbourhood of a foxhunter, would be sure to experience his displeasure, if he were caught in the destruction of any of these animals.

With respect to the mode of destroying them in either of these cases, it is not as expeditious, as it might be made by other means.  It is on the other hand, peculiarly cruel.  A poor animal is followed, not for minutes, but frequently for an hour, and sometimes for hours, in pain and agony.  Its sufferings begin with its first fear.  Under this fear, perpetually accompanying it, it flies from the noise of horses, and horsemen, and the cries of dogs.  It pants for breath, till the panting becomes difficult and painful.  It becomes wearied even to misery, yet dares not rest.  And under a complication of these sufferings, it is at length overtaken, and often literally torn to pieces by its pursuers.

Hunting therefore does not appear, in the opinion of the Quakers, to be followed for any of those purposes, which alone, according to the original charter, give mankind a right over the lives of brutes.  It is neither followed for food, nor for prevention of injury to man, or to the creatures belonging to him.  Neither is life taken away by means of it, as mercifully as it ought to be, according to the meaning of the[12] great condition.  But if hunting be not justifiable, when examined upon these principles, it can never be justifiable in the opinion of the Quakers, when it is followed on the principle of pleasure, all destruction of animal-life upon this last principle, must come within the charge of wanton cruelty, and be considered as a violation of a moral law.

[Footnote 12:  The netting of animals for food, is perfectly unobjectionable upon these principles.]

SECT.  III.

Diversions of the field judged by the morality of the New-Testament—­the renovated man or christian has a clearer knowledge of creation and of its uses—­he views animals as the creatures of God—­hence he finds animals to have rights independently of any written law—­he collects again new rights from the benevolence of his new feelings—­and new rights again from the written word of revelation.