I shall adhere only to that part of the argument, how far a person has a right to make a [9]pleasure of that, which occasions pain and death to the animal-creation: and I shall shew 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.
[Footnote 9: The Quakers and the poet Cowper likewise, in their laudable zeal for the happiness of the brute-creation, have given an improper description of the nature of the crime of these diversions.

They have made it to consist in a man's deriving pleasure from the sufferings of the animals in question, whereas it should have been made to consist in his making a pleasure of a pursuit which puts them to pain.

The most abandoned sportsman, it is to be presumed, never hunts them because he enjoys their sufferings.

His pleasure arises from considerations of another nature.] SECT.

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 the lives of animals for their food.