Quest. IX. May a rich man put out his tenants, to lay their tenements to his own demesnes, and so lay house to house, and land to land?
Answ. In two cases he may not: 1. In case he injure the tenant that is put out, by taking that from him which he hath right to, without his satisfaction and consent. 2. And in case it really tend to the injury of the commonwealth, by depopulation, and diminishing the strength of it. Otherwise it is lawful; and done in moderation by a pious man may be very convenient; 1. By keeping the land from beggary through the multitudes of poor families that overset it. 2. By keeping the more servants, among whom he may keep up a better order and more pious government in his own house, (making it as a church,) than can be expected in poor families; and his servants will (for soul and body) have a much better life, than if they married and had families, and small tenements of their own; but in a country that rather wanteth people, it is otherwise.
Quest. X. May one man be a tenant to divers tenements?
Answ. Yes, if it tend not, 1. To the wrong of any other; 2. Nor to depopulation, or to hinder the livelihood of others, while one man engrosseth more than is necessary or meet; for then it is unlawful.
Quest. XI. May one man have many trades or callings?
Answ. Not when he doth, in a covetous desire to grow rich, disable his poor neighbours to live by him on the same callings, seeking to engross all the gain to himself; nor yet when they are callings which are inconsistent; or when he cannot manage one aright, without the sinful neglect of the other. But otherwise it is as lawful to have two trades as one.
Quest. XII. Is it lawful for one man to keep shops in several market towns?
Answ. The same answer will serve as to the foregoing question.
[165] In omni certamine qui opulentior est, etiamsi accipit injuriam, tamen quia plus potest, facere videtur. Sallust. in Jugurth.
[166] Psa. cxlv.; Matt. v.; Lam. iii.