HOW much do we possess? How much do we own? Just what we use, and not one whit more. This may seem a paradox when applied to material things; but, pursued to the last analysis, the seeming paradox disappears and the seed-truth becomes revealed, for in the last analysis the proposition deals with us exclusively as individuals, and has nothing to do with such incidents as legacies or inheritances. Thus considered, is it not plain that the multimillionaire, for example, never possesses in fact what he does not use? In the strictest sense, such use must be personal, and to exercise the sort of control over a material thing which is permitted by arbitrary human laws is not, after all, the individual use or enjoyment thereof which really constitutes its ownership or possession. To illustrate: a man may, using the words as they are used ordinarily, own or possess a million bushels of wheat; nevertheless, if he never uses any of the wheat, his so-called ownership or possession is quite as mythical as the piles of gold and jewels which the insane person who supposes himself to be a Monte Cristo may imagine that he owns and possesses. Possibly the circumstance which most strongly differentiates the millionaire's ownership of the million bushels of wheat from the lunatic's ownership of the gold and jewels is the arbitrary recognition on the part of human law which entails as an incident the payment of taxes by the so-called owner of the wheat.
Is not the foregoing thought, so far as it goes, in accord with the teaching of Jesus with respect to material possessions, in the Sermon on the Mount? The non-Christian frequently calls this teaching "unpractical," and therefore "unreasonable." Probably he is assisted towards this view by that excessively literal acceptation of language which may easily become redutctio ad absurdum for any statement. This excessive literalism is nearly always sure to pervert the true meaning; and conspicuously so when Oriental habits of expression are dealt with. In interpreting the Scriptures the major meaning and prime intent may easily become obscured by the too literal emphasis put upon phraseology expressing merely incidental or literal or illustrative meanings. We need always to apprehend the spirit and intent of the text rather than its mere letter.
When one makes use of a piece of bread by eating it he destroys it as a piece of bread. Other instances: the use of electricity, steam-power, coal or wood for fuel, and so on, means their destruction, at least as forms or appearances apparent to our senses. In other words, in such cases the use or ownership of the material thing, as known to our physical senses, is self-destructive, so it is not much of an ownership, after all, even in the seeming to our physical sense. Thus, also, what are called sensual pleasures are self-destructive. To generalize: Every physical use of a physical object is more or less destructive. It may be objected, perhaps, that we make certain uses of many physical objects without destroying or impairing them in the least. To support this objection reference may be made to the use of a landscape, a painting, or other beautiful object upon which we look with delight. It is admitted that such use is not destructive, nay, it is further admitted that such use or enjoyment of a beautiful object increases through its exercise, instead of diminishing, but here the use or enjoyment is mental, not physical. Another distinction at this point: If we look rightly at a piece of lovely statuary our enjoyment grows, but this soon diminishes if we look at it with an impure thought.
