Direct. V. Mortify your own lusts and sinful curiosity, which maketh you think that you need so much, as tempteth you to get it by oppressing others. Know well how little is truly necessary! and how little nature (well-taught) is contented with! and what a privilege it is to need but little! Pride and curiosity are an insatiable gulf. Their daily trouble seemeth to them a necessary accommodation. Such abundance must be laid out on superfluous recreations, buildings, ornaments, furniture, equipage, attendants, entertainments, visitations, braveries, and a world of need-nots, (called by the names of handsomeness, cleanliness, neatness, conveniences, delights, usefulness, honour, civilities, comeliness, &c.) So much doth carnal concupiscence, pride, and curiosity thus devour, that hundreds of the poor must be oppressed to maintain it; and many a man that hath many score or hundred tenants who with all their families daily toil to get him provision for his fleshly lusts, doth find at the year's end, that all will hardly serve the turn, but this greedy devourer could find room for more; when one of his poor tenants could live and maintain all his family comfortably, if he had but so much as his landlord bestoweth upon one suit of clothes, or one proud entertainment, or one horse, or one pack of hounds. I am not persuading the highest to level their garb and expenses equal with the lowest; but mortify pride, curiosity, and gluttony, and you will find less need to oppress the poor, or to feed your concupiscence with the sweat and groans of the afflicted.
Direct. VI. Be not the sole judge of your own actions in a controverted case; but if any complain of you, hear the judgment of others that are wise and impartial in the case. For it is easy to misjudge where self-interest is concerned.
Direct. VII. Love your poor brethren as yourselves, and delight in their welfare as if it were your own. And then you will never oppress them willingly; and if you do it ignorantly, you will quickly feel it and give over upon their just complaint; as you will quickly feel when you hurt yourselves, and need no great exhortation to forbear.
Tit. 2. Cases of Conscience about Oppression, especially of Tenants
Quest. I. Is it lawful for a mean man, who must needs make the best of it, to purchase tenanted land of a liberal landlord, who setteth his tenants a much better pennyworth than the buyer can afford.
Answ. Distinguish, 1. Between a seller who understandeth all this, and one that doth not. 2. Between a tenant that hath by custom a half-title to his easier rent, and one that hath not. 3. Between a tenant that consenteth and one that consenteth not. 4. Between buying it when a liberal man might else have bought it, and buying it when a worse else would have bought it. 5. Between a case of scandal and of no scandal.
And so I answer, 1. If the landlord that selleth it expect that the buyer do use the tenants as well as he hath done, and sell it accordingly, it is unrighteous to do otherwise (ordinarily). 2. In many countries it is the custom not to turn out a tenant, nor to raise his rent; so that many generations have held the same land at the same rent; which though it give no legal title, is yet a half-title in common estimation. In such a case it will be scandalous, and infamous, and injurious, and therefore unlawful to purchase it with a purpose to raise the rent, and to do accordingly. 3. In case that a better landlord would buy it, who would use the tenant better than you can do, it is not (ordinarily) lawful for you to buy it. I either express or imply "ordinarily" in most of my solutions; because that there are some exceptions lie against almost all such answers, in extraordinary cases; which the greatest volume can scarce enumerate.
But if, 1. It be the seller's own doing to withdraw his liberality so far from his tenants, as to sell his land on hard rates, on supposition that the buyer will improve it. 2. And if it be a tenant that cannot either by custom or any other plea, put in a claim in point of equity to his easy-rented land. 3. And if as bad a landlord would buy it if you do not. 4. If it be not a real scandal: I say if all these four concur; 5. Or (alone) if the tenant consent freely to your purchase on these terms; then it is no injury. But the common course is, for a covetous man that hath money, never to consider what a loser the tenant is by his purchase, but to buy and improve the land at his own pleasure; which is no better than oppression.
Quest. II. May not a landlord take as much for his land as it is worth?
Answ. 1. Sometimes it is land that no man can claim an equitable title to hold upon an easier rent, and sometimes it is otherwise, as aforesaid, by custom and long possession, or other reasons. 2. Sometimes the tenant is one that you are obliged to show mercy to; and sometimes he is one that no more than commutative justice is due to. And so I answer, 1. If it be an old tenant who by custom or any other ground, can claim an equitable title to his old pennyworth, you may not enhance the rent to the full worth. 2. If it be one that you are obliged to show mercy as well as justice to, you may not take the full worth. 3. The common case in England is, that the landlords are of the nobility or gentry, and the tenants are poor men, who have nothing but what they get by their hard labour out of the land which they hold; and in this case some abatement of the full worth is but such a necessary mercy, as may be called justice. Note still, that by the full worth, I mean, so much as you could set it for to a stranger who expecteth nothing but strict justice, as men buy and sell things in a market.
But, 1. If you deal with a tenant as rich or richer than yourself, or with one that needeth not your mercy, or is no fit object of it; 2. And if it be land that no man can by custom claim equitably to hold on lower terms, and so it is no injury to another, nor just scandal, then you may lawfully raise it to the full worth. Sometimes a poor man setteth a house or land to a rich man, where the scruple hath no place.
Quest. III. May a landlord raise his rents, though he take not the full worth?
Answ. He may do it when there is just reason for it, and none against it. There is just reason for it when, 1. The land was much underset before. 2. Or when the land is proportionably improved. 3. Or when the plenty of money maketh a greater sum to be in effect no more than a lesser heretofore. 4. Or when an increase of persons, or other accident, maketh land dearer than it was. But then it must be supposed, 1. That no contract, 2. Nor custom, 3. Nor service and merit, do give the tenant any equitable right to his better pennyworth. And also that mercy prohibit not the change.
Quest. IV. How much must a landlord set his land below the full worth, that he may be no oppressor, or unmerciful to his tenants?
Answ. No one proportion can be determined of; because a great alteration may be made in respect to the tenant's ability, his merit, to the time and place, and other accidents. Some tenants are so rich, as is said, that you are not bound to any abatement. Some are so bad, that you are bound to no more than strict justice and common humanity to them. Some years (like the last, when a longer drought than any man alive had known, burnt up the grass) disableth a tenant to pay his rent; some countries are so scarce of money, that a little abatement is more than in another place; but ordinarily the common sort of tenants in England should have so much abated of the fullest worth, that they may comfortably live on it, and follow their labours with cheerfulness of mind, and liberty to serve God in their families, and to mind the matters of their salvation, and not to be necessitated to such toil, and care, and pinching want, as shall make them liker slaves than freemen, and make their lives uncomfortable to them, and make them unfit to serve God in their families, and seasonably mind eternal things.
Quest. V. What if the landlord be in debt, or have some present want of money, may he not then raise the rent of those lands that were underlet before?
Answ. If his pride pretend want where there is none, (as to give extraordinary portions with his daughters, to erect sumptuous buildings, &c.) this is no good excuse for oppression. But if he really fall into want, then all that his tenants hold as mere free gifts from his liberality, he may withdraw (as being no longer able to give). But that which they had by custom an equitable title to, or by contract also a legal title to, he may not withdraw. (And yet all this is his sin, if he brought that poverty culpably on himself; it is his sin in the cause, though, supposing that cause, the raising of his rent be lawful.) But it is not every debt in a rich man, who hath other ways of paying it, which is a true necessity in this case; and if a present debt made it necessary only at that time, it is better (by fine or otherwise) make a present supply, than thereupon to lay a perpetual burden on the tenants, when the cause is ceased.
Quest. VI. What if there be abundance of honest people in far greater want than my tenants are, (yea, perhaps preachers of the gospel,) and I have no other way to relieve them unless I raise my rents; am I not bound rather to give to the best and poorest, than to others?
Answ. Yes, if it were a case that concerned mere giving; but when you must take away from one to give to another, there is more to be considered in it. Therefore in these two cases at least you may not raise your tenants' rents to relieve the best or poorest whosoever: 1. In case that he have some equitable title to your land, as upon the easier rent. 2. Or in case that the scandal of seeming injustice or cruelty, is like to do more hurt to the interest of religion and men's souls, than your relieving the poor with the addition would do good (which a prudent man by collation of probable consequents may satisfactorily discern): but if it were not only to preserve the comforts, but to save the lives of others in their present famine, nature teacheth you to take that which is truly your own, both from your tenants, and your servant, and your own mouths, to relieve men in such extreme distress; and nature will teach all men to judge it your duty, and no scandalous oppression. But when you cannot relieve the ordinary wants of the poor, without such a scandalous raising of your rents as will do more harm than your alms would do good, God doth not then call you to give such alms; but you are to be supposed to be unable.
Quest. VII. May I raise a tenant's rent, or turn him out of his house, because he is a bad man; by a kind of penalty?
Answ. A bad man hath a title to his own, as well as a good man; and therefore if he have either legal or equitable title, you may not; nor yet if the scandal of it is like to do more hurt, than the good can countervail which you intend. Otherwise you may either raise his rent, or turn him out, if he be a wicked, profligate, incorrigible person, after due admonition; yea, and you ought to do it, lest you be a cherisher of wickedness. If the parents under Moses's law were bound to accuse their own son to the judges in such a case, and say, "This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard; and all the men of the city must stone him till he die, to put away evil from among them," Deut. xxi. 18-21; then surely a wicked tenant is not so far to be spared, as to be cherished by bounty in his sin. It is the magistrate's work to punish him by governing justice; but it is your work as a prudent benefactor, to withhold your gifts of bounty from him. And I think it is one of the great sins of this age, that this is not done, it being one of the noblest means imaginable to reform the land, and make it happy: if landlords would thus punish or turn out their wicked, incorrigible tenants it would do much more than the magistrate can do. The vulgar are most effectually ruled by their interest, as we rule our dogs and horses more by the government of their bellies than by force. They will most obey those on whom they apprehend their good or hurt to have most dependence. If landlords would regard their tenants' souls, so much as to correct them thus for their wickedness, they would be the greatest benefactors and reformers of the land; but alas, who shall first reform the landlords? and when may it be hoped that many or most great men will be such?
Quest. VIII. May one take a house over another's head, (as they speak,) or take the land which he is a tenant to, before he be turned out of possession?
Answ. Not out of a greedy desire to be rich, nor coveting that which is another's; nor yet while he is any way injured by it; nor yet when the act is like to be so scandalous, as to hurt men's souls more than it will profit your body. If you come with the offer of a greater rent than he can give, or than the landlord hath just cause to require of him, to get it out of his hands by over-bidding him, this is mere covetous oppression. But in other cases it is lawful to take the house and land which another tenant hath possession of: as, 1. In case that he willingly leave it, and consent. 2. Or if he unwillingly (but justly) be put out; and another tenant must be provided against the time that he is to be dispossessed. 3. Yea, if he be unjustly put out, if he that succeeded him have no hand in it, nor by his taking the house or land do promote the injury, nor scandalously countenance injustice. For when a tenement is void, though by injury, it doth not follow, that no man may ever live in it more: but if the title be his that is turned out, then you may not take it of another; because you will possess another man's habitation. But if it should go for a standing rule, that no man may in any case take a house over another man's head, (as country people would have it,) then every man's house and land must be long untenanted, to please the will of every contentious or unjust possessor; and any one that hath no title, or will play the knave, may injure the true owner at his pleasure.
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.
CHAPTER XXI.
CASES ABOUT, AND DIRECTIONS AGAINST, PRODIGALITY AND SINFUL WASTEFULNESS
Because men's carnal interest and sensuality is predominant with the greatest part of the world, and therefore governeth them in their judgment about duty and sin, it thence cometh to pass that wastefulness and prodigality are easily believed to be faults, so far as they bring men to shame or beggary, or apparently cross their own pleasure or commodity: but in other cases, they are seldom acknowledged to be any sins at all; yea, all that are gratified by them, account them virtues, and there is scarce any sin which is so commonly commended; which must needs tend to the increase of it, and to harden men in their impenitency in it; and verily if covetousness, and selfishness or poverty, did not restrain it in more persons than true conscience doth, it were like to go for the most laudable quality, and to be judged most meritorious of present praise and future happiness. Therefore in directing you against this sin, I must first tell you what it is; and then tell you wherein the malignity of it doth consist: the first will be best done in the definition of it, and enumeration of the instances, and examination of each one of them.
Direct. I. Truly understand what necessary frugality, or parsimony, and sinful wastefulness are.
What necessary frugality is.
Necessary frugality or sparing is an act of fidelity, obedience, and gratitude, by which we use all our estates so faithfully for the chief Owner, so obediently to our chief Ruler, and so gratefully to our chief Benefactor, as that we waste it not any other way.
As we hold our estates under God, as Owner, Ruler, and Benefactor, so must we devote them to him, and use them for him in each relation: and christian parsimony cannot be defined by a mere negation of active wastefulness, because idleness itself, and not using it aright, is real wastefulness.
Wastefulness, what it is.
Wastefulness or prodigality is that sin of unfaithfulness, disobedience, and ingratitude, by which either by action or omission we mispend or waste some part of our estates to the injury of God, our absolute Lord, our Ruler, and Benefactor: that is, besides and against his interest, his command, and his pleasure and glory, and our ultimate end.
These are true definitions of the duty of frugality and the sin of wastefulness.
Inst. I. One way of sinful wastefulness is, In pampering the belly in excess, curiosity, or costliness of meat or drink, of which I have spoken, chap. viii. part i.
Quest. I. Are all men bound to fare alike? or when is it wastefulness and excess?
Answ. This question is answered in the foresaid chapter of gluttony, part iv. tit. 1. 1. Distinguish between men's several tempers, and strength, and appetites. 2. And between the restraint of want, and the restraint of God's law. And so it is thus resolved:
1. Such difference in quantity or quality as men's health or strength, and real benefit, requireth, may be made by them that have no want.
2. When want depriveth the poor of that which would be really for their health, and strength, and benefit, it is not their duty who have no such want to conform themselves to other men's afflictions; except when other reasons do require it.
3. But all men are bound to avoid real excess in matter, or manner, and curiosity, and to lay out nothing needlessly on their bellies; yea, nothing which they are called to lay out a better way. Understand this answer, and it will suffice you.
Inst. II. Another way of prodigality is by needless, costly visits, and entertainments.
Quest. II. What cost upon visits and entertainments is unlawful and prodigal?
Answ. 1. Not only all that which hath an ill original, as pride or flattery of the rich, and all that hath an ill end, as being merely to keep up a carnal, unprofitable interest and correspondency; but also all that which is excessive in degree. I know you will say, But that is the difficulty, to know when it is excessive. It is not altogether impertinent to say, when it is above the proportion of your own estate, or the ordinary use of those of your own rank, or when it plainly tendeth to cherish gluttony or excess in others: but these answers are no exact solution. I add therefore, that it is excess when any thing is that way expended, which you are called to expend another way.
Object. But this leaveth it still as difficult as before.
Answ. When in rational probability a greater good may be done by another way of expense, consideratis considerandis, and a greater good is by this way neglected, then you had a call to spend it otherwise, and this expense is sinful.
Object. It is a doubt whether of two goods it be a man's duty always to choose the greater.
Answ. Speaking of that good which is within his choice, it is no more doubt than whether good be the object of the will. If God be eligible as good, then the greatest good is most eligible.
Whether a man is bound to prefer the greatest good.
Object. But this is still a difficulty insuperable: how can a man in every action and expense discern which way it is that the greatest good is like to be attained? This putteth a man's conscience upon endless perplexities, and we shall never be sure that we do not sin; for when I have given to a poor man, or done some good, for aught I know there was a poorer that should have had it, or a greater good that should have been done.
Answ. 1. The contrary opinion legitimateth almost all villany, and destroyeth most good works as to ourselves or others. If a man may lawfully prefer a known lesser good before a greater, and be justified because the lesser is a real good, then he may be feeding his horse when he should be saving the life of his child or neighbour, or quenching a fire in the city, or defending the person of his king: he may deny to serve his king and country, and say, I was ploughing or sowing the while. He may prefer sacrifice before mercy; he may neglect his soul, and serve his body. He may plough on the Lord's day, and neglect all God's worship. A lesser duty is no duty, but a sin, when a greater is to be done. Therefore it is certain, that when two goods come together to our choice, the greater is to be chosen, or else we sin. 2. As you expect that your steward should proportion his expenses according to the necessity of your business, and not give more for a thing than it is worth, nor lay out your money upon smaller commodity, while he leaveth your greater business unprovided for; and as you expect that your servant who hath many things in the day to do, should have so much skill as to know which to prefer, and not to leave undone the chiefest, whilst he spendeth his time upon the least: so doth God require that his servants labour to be so skilful in his service, as to be able to compare their businesses together, and to know which at every season to prefer. If christianity required no wisdom and skill, it were below men's common trades and callings. 3. And yet when you have done your best here, and truly endeavour to serve God faithfully, with the best skill and diligence you have, you need not make it a matter of scrupulosity, perplexity, and vexation; for God accepteth you, and pardoneth your infirmities, and rewardeth your fidelity. And what if it do follow, that you know not but there may be some sinful omission of a better way? Is that so strange or intolerable a conclusion; as long as it is a pardoned failing, which should not hinder the comfort of your obedience? Is it strange to you that we are all imperfect? and imperfect in every good we do, even by a culpable, sinful imperfection? You never loved God in your lives without a sinful imperfection in your love; and yet nothing in you is more acceptable to him than your love. Shall we think a case of conscience ill resolved, unless we may conclude, that we are sure we have no sinful imperfection in our duty? If your servant have not perfect skill, in knowing what to prefer in buying and selling, or in his work, I think you will neither allow him therefore to neglect the greater and better, knowingly, or by careless negligence, nor yet would you have him sit down and whine, and say, I know not which to choose; but you would have him learn to be as skilful as he can, and then willingly and cheerfully do his business with the best skill, and care, and diligence he can, and this you will best accept.
So that this holdeth as the truest and exactest solution of this and many other such cases: He that spendeth that upon an entertainment of some great ones, which should relieve some poor distressed families, that are ready to perish, doth spend it sinfully. If you cannot see this in God's cause, suppose it were the king's, and you will see it: if you have but twenty pounds to spend, and your tax or subsidy cometh to so much; if you entertain some noble friend with that money, will the king be satisfied with that as an excuse? or will you not be told that the king should have first been served? Remember him then, who will one day ask, "Have you fed, or clothed, or visited me?" Matt. xxv. You are not absolute owners of any thing, but the stewards of God; and must expend it as he appointeth you. And if you let the poor lie languishing in necessities, whilst you are at great charges to entertain the rich without a necessity or greater good, you must answer it as an unfaithful servant.
And yet on the other side, it may fall out that a person of quality, by a seasonable, prudent, handsome, respectful entertainment of his equals or superiors, may do more good than by bestowing that charge upon the poor. He may save more than he expendeth, by avoiding the displeasure of men in power: he may keep up his interest, by which if he be faithful, he may do God and his country more service, than if he had given so much to the poor. And when really it is a needful means to a greater good, it is a duty; and then to omit it, and give that cost to the poor, would be a sin.
Object. But if this rule hold, a man must never do but one kind of good; when he hath found out the greatest, he must do nothing else.
Answ. He must always do the greatest good: but the same thing is not at all times the greatest good. Out of season and measure a good may be turned to an evil: praying in its season is better than ploughing; and ploughing in its season is better than praying, and will do more good; for God will more accept and bless it.
Object. Therefore it seemeth the prudentest way to divide my expenses according to the proportion of others of my quality; some to the poor, and some to necessary charges, and some to actions of due civility.
Answ. That there must be a just distribution is no question; because God hath appointed you several duties for your expenses: but the question is of the proportions of each respectively. Where God hath made many duties constantly necessary, (as to maintain your own bodies, your children, to pay tribute to the king, to help the poor, to maintain the charges of the church,) there all must be wisely proportioned. But entertainments, recreations, and other such after to be mentioned, which are not constant duties, may be sometimes good and sometimes sinful: and the measure of such expenses must be varied only by the rule already laid down, viz. according to the proportion of the effect or good which is like to follow: though the custom of others of the same rank may sometimes intimate what proportion will be suitable to that lawful end; and sometimes the inordinate custom of others will rather tell one what is to be avoided. Therefore true prudence (without a carnal bias) comparing the good effects together, which rationally are like to follow, is the only resolver of this doubt. Which having so largely showed, I shall refer you to it, in the solution of many of the following questions.
Inst. III. Another way of sinful wasting is upon unnecessary, sumptuous buildings.
Quest. III. When is it prodigality to erect sumptuous edifices?
Answ. Not when they are for the public good, either in point of use, or ornament and honour, so be it no greater good be thereby omitted. Therefore it is not churches, hospitals, burses, or common halls that I am speaking of. Nor when they are proportioned to the quality of the person, for the honour of magistracy, or for a man's necessary use. But when it is for ostentation of a man's riches, or rather of his pride, and for the gratifying of a carnal, irrational fancy; and when a man bestoweth more upon buildings, than is proportionable to his estate, and to his better expenses; and (to speak more exactly) when he bestoweth that upon his buildings, which some greater service calleth for at that time; it is then his prodigality and sin.
Quest. IV. Here once for all let us inquire, Whether it be not lawful, as in diet, so in buildings, recreation, and other such things, to be at some charge for our delight, as well as for our necessities?
Answ. The question is thus commonly stated, but not well; for it seemeth to imply, that no delights are necessary, and so putteth things in opposition which are oft coincident. Therefore I distinguish, 1. Of necessity: some things are necessary to our being, and some to our felicity, and some but to our smaller benefits. 2. Of delight: some delight is sinful; as gratifying a sinful humour or disposition: some is unnecessary or wholly useless; and some is necessary, either to our greater or our lesser good. And so the true solution is: (1.) The sinful delight of a proud, a covetous, a lustful, a voluptuous mind, is neither to be purchased or used. (2.) A delight wholly needless, that is, unprofitable, is sinful if it be purchased, but at the price of a farthing, or of a bit of bread, or of a minute's time; because that is cast away which purchaseth it. (3.) A delight which tendeth to the health of the body, and the alacrity of the mind, to fit it for our calling and the service of God, (being not placed in any forbidden thing,) may be both indulged and purchased, so it be not above its worth. (4.) So far as delight in houses, or sports, or any creature, tendeth to corrupt our minds, and draw us to the love of this present world, and alienate our hearts from heaven, so far must they be resisted and mortified, or sanctified and turned a better way. (5.) In the utensils of our duty to God, usually a moderate, natural delight, is a great help to the duty, and may become a spiritual delight: as a delight in many books, in the preacher's utterance, in the melody of psalms, in my study, and its conveniences, in my walk for meditation, &c. And a delight in our food and recreations, maketh them much fitter to cherish health, and to attain their ends; so it be not corrupt, immoderate, or abused to evil ends.