Immateriality is a quality of God and of the hu- man soul. The immateriality of God denotes that he forms an absolute contrast to matter ; he is simple, and has no parts, and so cannot be dissolved ; matter, on the other hand, is made up of parts into which it can be re- solved. God is also free from the limitations to which matter is subject, i. e. from the limits of space and time. The immateriality of God is therefore the basis of the qualities of eternity, omnipresence, and unchangeable- ness. Thus the immateriality of the soul includes like- wise simplicity as another of its qualities. This, of course, does not absolutely set it above the limitations of space and time, since the soul needs the body for a nec- essary organ of its life; nor does it set aside any further development, but it certainly includes indestructibility, and thus serves as a proof of immortality (q. v.). The materiality of the soid was asserted by Tertullian, Arno- bius, and others, during the first three centuries. Near the close of the fourth, the immateriality of the soul was maintained by Augustine, Nemesius, and Mamertus Claudianus. See Guizot, History of Civilization, i, 394; Krauth, Vocah. of Philos. p. 245. See also Immensity OF God ; Soul, Traduction of.
Immediate Imputation of Sin. See Ijipu- tation.
Immensity of God is explained by Dr. J. Pye Smith {First Lines of Christ. Theol. p. 138) to be the ab- solute necessity of being, considered in relation to space. " There is with God no diffusion nor contraction, no ex- tension nor circumspection, or any such relation to space as belongs to limited natures. God is equally near to, and equally far from, everj^ point of space and every atom of the universe. He is universally and immedi- ately present, not as a body, but as a spirit ; not by motion, or penetration, or filling, as would be predicated of a diffused fluid, or in any way as if the infinity of God were composed of a countless luimbcr of finite parts, but in a yfay peculiar to his own spiritual and perfect nature, and of which we can form no concep- tion." In the passages of Job xi, 7-9 ; 1 Kings viii, 27 (2 Chron. vi, 18) ; Psa. cxxxix, 7-13 ; Isa. Ixvi, 1 ; Jer. xxiii, 23, 24; Amos ix. 2, 3; Matt, vi, 4, G; Acts xvii, 24, 27, 28 ; also Isa. xl, 12-15, 21, 22, 2.5, 26, " the repre- sentations are such as literally indicate a kind of dif- fused and filling subtile material ; but this is the conde- scending manner of the Scriptures, and is evidently to be understood with an exclusion of material ideas. Metaphysical or philosophical preciscness is not in the character of scriptural composition, nor would it ever suit the bulk of mankind ; and no language or concep- tions of men can reach the actual expression of the truth, or be any other than analogical. When the Scriptures speak of " God being in heaven,'' they mean his suprem- acy in all perfection, and his universal dominion."
Immensity and omnipresence, again, are^distinguished in that " the former is absolute, being the necessary in-
BBIER
612
BIMERSION"
herent perfection of the Deity in itself, as infinitely ex- alted above all conception of space; and that the latter is relative, arising out of the position of a created world. The moment that world commenced, or the first created portion of it, there was and ever remains the divme presence (rruvovaia, adessentiu)."
The qualities of extension and divisibility are those of body, not of a pure, proper, highest spirit. " Socinus and his immediate followers denied a proper ubiquity, immensity, or omnipresence to the essence or substance of the Deity, and represented the universal presence of God spoken of in Scripture as denoting only the acts and effects of his power, favor, and aid." Des Cartes and his followers held " that the essence of the Deity is thought, and that it has no relation to space." See J. Pye Smith, /»-s< Lines of Christian Theology, edited by W. Farrar (2d ed. Lond. 1861) ; Augustine, Be Civ. Dei, 20 ; Bretschneider, Dogmaiik, i, 396 sq. See Omnipkesence OF God.
Im'mer (Heb. Immer', ^52N, talkative, or, accord- ing to Furst, hirjh; Sept. 'Efi^tii(>), the name of several priests, mostly near the time of the Exile.
1. The head of the sixteenth sacerdotal division, ac- cordbig to David's appointment (1 Chron. xxiv, 14). B.C. 1014.
2. The father of Pashur, which latter so grossly mis- used the prophet Jeremiah (.Jer. xx, 1). B.C. ante 607. By many the name is regarded here as put patronymic- ally for the preceding.
3. One whose descendants to the number of 1052 re- turned from Babylon with Zerubbabel (Ezra ii, 37 ; Neh. vii, 40). He is very possibly the same with the father of Meshillemoth (Neh. xi, 13) or Meshillemith (1 Chron. ix, 12), certain of whose descendants took a conspicu- ous part in the sacred duties at Jerusalem after the Ex- ile ; and prubablj' the same with the one some of whose descendanls divorced their Gentile wives at the instance of Ezra (Ezra x, 20). B.C. much ante 536. By some he is identified -with the two preceding.
4. One who accompanied Zerubbabel from Babylon, but was unable to prove his Israelitish descent (Ezra ii, 59; Neh. vii, 61). B.C. 536. It does not clearly appear, however, that he claimed to belong to the priestly or- der, and it is possible that the name is only given as that of a place in the Baljylonian dominions from which some of those named in the following verses came.