The Virginia Gazette

To the PRINTER.

SIR,

If you'll please to communicate to the Public the following Observations on one of the reigning Diversions of this Country, you'll oblige
Your very humble Servant.

The Right Mankind has to deprive an Innocent Animal of Life, must depend upon the Property every respective Individual has therein Now, I say, that the Property Men have in every Thing they possesses, is limited; or, that no Man may use any of the Things he possesseth, according to his own Pleasure, unless such Using be agreeable to the Divine Law. Therefore the depriving an innocent Animal of Life, must be under certain Limitations.

Whether the Dominion God gave the first Man over the Creatures, extended to the taking away their Lives for any other Use than Sacrifice, Or for Clothing; or whether the Allowance was only given to Noah after the Deluge, to kill them for Food, I shall not here enquire, since whatever Property Man has in the Creatures, is derived from God; and I shall take it for granted that Mankind has a Licence to kill them for the Necessities and Conveniences of Life. The Opinion of some Calvinists, that none but the Elect have such Property, not being worth confuting.

But then the Question is, how far this Property extends, or where it stops. Now the Way to find this out, is to examine where the Exercise thereof is supported by any Divine Law, or where it contradicts the same. For Instance. The Domestick, or innocent Animals are not to be killed to gratify an extravagant Passion for Money, out of Wantonness, or with Circumstances of Cruelty attending such killing. Because this is a Transgression of the Laws that forbid such Crimes. For even the Law of Nature forbids Cruelty. It is grievous to see, or even to hear of an Animal in Torment. Our very Make and Constitution (if it is not vitiated) restrains us from being insensible of the Pains of others. Plutarch says, "if we kill an Animal for our Provision, let us do it with the Feelings of Compassion, and without tormenting it. Let us consider, that 'tis, in its own Nature, Cruelty, to put a living Creature to Death; we at least destroy a Soul that has Sense and Perception." And again, "It is no more than the Obligation of our very Birth, to practise Equity to our own Kind: but Humanity may be extended through the Whole Order of Creatures, even to the Monarch."

The Scripture tells us, Prov. xii. 10. That the Righteous Man regardeth the Life of his Beast. Then, by the Rule of Contraries, He that regardeth not the Life of his Beast, is not a righteous Man. How can he, who wantonly puts a poor innocent Animal to a cruel and lingering Death, be said to regard its Life. Certainly in no Sense. Therefore I infer, that he who does so, is an unrighteous Man, or, so far a Transgressor of the Divine Law.

To apply this to the Practice so much in Vogue here, of late, of Cock-fighting. I would beg Leave, to ask the Advocates for that Diversion, upon what Law is it founded? If it be answered, by asking another Question, viz. Does not the Laws of the Country allow a Man to use his own Property, as he pleases? I answer, By no Means. For either such Laws are agreeable to the Divine Law, or they are not. To say they are not agreeable to the Divine Law, is saying in other Words, no Man ought to observe them. Which is a poor Compliment to the Laws of one's Country. It follows therefore that they are agreeable to the Divine Law. And if so, I have endeavoured to shew that the above Practice is contrary as well to the Divine Law revealed, as to that of Nature.

But it may perhaps be objected, That the Animals, for which so tender a Regard is pleaded, are of such a Nature, that they will tear and destroy one another whenever they meet; therefore Cock-fighting is only giving further Scope to this natural Instinct. To which I answer, Admitting the Truth of the Fact contained in the Objection, it will by no Means follow, that because some of the brute Animals are naturally fierce therefore Men are to cultivate and improve that Quality in them. On the contrary, it is observable that the most civilized part of Mankind has always tam'd and render'd useful many of the fierce Animals, as they ought to have done.

And if it be a just Observation (as I think it is) that most of the domestick Animals are only apt to quarrel with such of their own Species as they don't usually see, but are commonly fond of those they associate with, then I think the Objection turns against the Objectors.

And as the Circumstances of an Action very much affect its Nature. this Practice will be found attended with Circumstances shockingly profane and impious. This I can assert from my own Observation. For having casually been present at a Cock-fight, some Time ago, I could not but take Notice, with much Concern, that some Gentlemen, who, upon other Occasions, behav'd with great Decency, and as if they had been influenced with suitable Impressions of the awful and tremendous Name of GOD, did then speak and act, as if the Divine Law had been for that Time abrogated, opening their Mouths with horrid Oaths, and dreadful Imprecations. And all this when their Passions were not much inflam'd, being early in the Day, and their high Deeds not yet begun. I for my Part was soon tir'd with the Place and Diversion, as 'tis called, and left it, with a firm Purpose, never to be present at another such. To it succeeded Drinking and Gaming, an uninterrupted Violation both of Divine and Human Laws, for some Days and Nights.

Now admitting that the Practice of Cock fighting were lawful in itself which I absolutely deny; yet when 'tis attended with such Circumstances and follow'd by such terrible Consequences, is it not a Shame that it should be allowed in a Christian Country. Were one of the primitive Christians but to revisit this Globe, and be dropt at a modern Cock-fight, he would hardly be persuaded, that he was among Christians; but upon his being assured, that he was in the purest Part of the Christian Church, how great must his Surprize and Concern be, to find such a dreadful Dissolution of Manners, among those that bear the Redeemer's Name.

If then this Practice be so unjustifiable, is it not fit, the more sober and regular Part of Mankind, who have, without duly examining the Nature thereof, or viewing it in the Light in which I have placed it, given too much Countenance thereto, should abandon the same; and thereby discountenance, if they cannot entirely remove the growing Evil: For I'm persuaded, that if those in eminent Stations, would shew their Dislike, not only to that, but to every other dissolute Practice, the Vulgar, who are very apt to mimic them, would soon give it up also; at least it would become so infamous, that none who regarded their Character, would be found publickly to practise it.

It may perhaps be thought, that I have exaggerated the Malignity of the above Practice, and that many who love the Diversion, abhor the Consequences thereof. But I would have such consider, what has been said as to the Lawfulness thereof; and then, though the Circumstances attending be not essential thereto, yet if they are so inseparable therefrom, as the World goes, that they are become almost what Logicians call secondary Qualities, then I will leave it to their Consciences to determine, what is best to be done in such a Case.

Upon the whole; If any one, who has aught to offer in Support of the above-mentioned Diversion, will please to communicate his Thoughts to the Public, I shall duly consider, and endeavour to answer them, if they contain any Thing like Reason and Argument: But if no better Reason can be given for it, than that it is an old Custom, in itself indifferent, and not to be parted with, because some People of scrupulous Consciences dislike it; then, I hope, Men of Sense will not think it beneath them, to follow good Advice, from whatever Quarter it comes, and abandon a Practice for which so little can be pleaded.