MATERIALISM (ante). One difficulty in treating this subject is that of giving a definition of the term satisfactory- to all parties. 'Webster defines a materialist as " one who denies the existence of spiritual substances, and maintains that the soul of man is the result of a particular organization of matter in the body." Knight's English cyclopmdia defines materialism as " a name applied to any philosophical system which denies .the existence of a spiritual or immaterial principle in man, called the mind or soul, distinct from matter; or in other words, denies the immateriality of the soul." The Encyclopeedut Britanniea says " materialism is the name given to that speculative theory which resolves all existence into a modification of matter." The latter definition is practically the most comprehensive and correct, although some materialists might with justice object to it without modification. for there are those who are practically materialists, if they do not call themselves such, who do not deny the existence of God, at the .same time that they maintain that matter contains within itself--either endowed, or originally possessing—properties by which it is capable of transforming itself into the vanous forms of life, and moreover that this power is not essentially the active presence of Deity. The belief of the union or the unity of God and matter is pantheism (q.v.). It is common to denote the opposite doctrine to materialism by the term idealism; but Ong fails to make sufficient distinction, and is not as appropriate as the word spiritualism iu its proper sense, as used to designate )1. belief in a spiritual being who created the uni verse and controls its phenomena by laws or by continuous force, and who has moreover cndowed certain of the higher animals with certain degrees of intelligence, ing to man especially intellectual powers which are generally believed to result from the possession of an immaterial and immortal spirit separate from the divine, which, upon the dissolution of the body, is to continue its existence in another world, and, moreover, as those who accept divine revelation believe, is to be rewarded or punished. The terms materialism and materialist have often been misapplied, and it is sometimes difficult to form an opinion as to whether the views of some of the ancient, as well as modern phi losophers are essentially materialistic or not. Democritus is usually classed as a material ist; but such a disposal of his philosophy cannot accord with a rational treatment of the subject of materialism as it meets us to-day, for one of his propositions is as follows: " The soul consists of fine, smooth, round atoms, like those of fire. These atoms are
the most mobile, and by their motion, which permeates the whole body, the phenomena of life are produced. Democritus also believed that this matter was distributed through out the universe, producing the phenomena of heat, light and life. Epicurus, who may be considered in some respects as a follower or disciple of Democritus, taught that the soul was a fine substance, distributed through the whole mass of the body, and most resembles the air, with an infusion of warmth. This soul was not, however, immortal, but ceased to live on the dissolution of the body; but it was something superior to the matter of the body. This, therefore, WitS at least a modified form of materialism, and not that which invests the matter of the body itself with vital and intellectual power. It was not so spiritual a doctrine a.s that held by Socrates and Plato, the soul, according to them, being indestructible and devoid of all grossness. The author of the article "Materialism" in Knight's English cyclopgedia says: " The systems to which the name materialism is applied may be roughly distributed under a threefold division. First, it is applied to a syktem (like that of Hartley) which admits the existence of a soul, but which, attempting 'to explain mental phenomena physically, or by movements arising out of the bodily organization, seems to imply materialism. Secondly, it is applied to the system of Hobbes and Priestly, and of the French school of writers of which De la Mettrie may be taken as a specimen, which distinctly deny the existence of a soul as a separate principle in man, but which do not deny either a God or a future state. In the systems of these writers is evolved the pure and proper idea of materialism divested of all unnecessary consequences. Thirdly and lastly, the name is applied to systems like that of the ancient Epicureans, which deny both a future state of rewards and punish ments, and a divine creator, systems for which atheism would be the better name, inas much as materialism fails to denote their more important and distinctive ingredients." Upon further mention of Priestly this writer says: " He does not deny the immortality of man and a future state of rewards and punishments. On the contrary, he distinctlyr affirms these on the authority of Scripture. It is needless to add that Dr. Priestly does not deny the existence of a God." It is therefore perceived that t-here are various ideas as to what constitutes materialism.