Perhaps our author's _immaterial mind_ or _spirit_ will not suffer him to believe that the _whole_ spirit of man is made up or consists _of parts._ If the spirit of man is a _substance,_ as Mr. Taylder admits, though he denies its _materiality,_ then it must be either a simple uncompounded being or atom, or a united collection of such beings or atoms.
Bishop Butler supposes the spirit of man to be a single, simple, indivisible being. He remarks, that "since consciousness is a single and individual power, it should seem that the subject in which it resides must be so too," "that is the conscious being." He further says, "That we have no way of determining by experience what is the certain bulk of the living being each man calls himself; and yet, (continues he), till it be determined that it is larger in bulk than the solid elementary particles of matter, which there is no ground to think any natural power can dissolve, there is no sort of reason to think death to be the dissolution of it, of the living being, even though it should not be absolutely indiscerptible." (Butler's Analogy. Part I, Chap. I.) Our author seems to be a little more positive than Butler, and asserts apparently without any doubt, that "mind is simple not compounded." (Taylder against Materialism. Page 14.) Here, then, according to both Butler and Taylder, we have a simple, uncompounded, indivisible, little atom of conscious substance, or, in other words, an _intelligent atom._ The terms _atoms_ and _being_ are synonymous when applied to a simple indivisible substance so small that Butler intimates that its "bulk" has not been determined to exceed "the solid elementary particles of matter."
If the spirit of one man is a little atom of intelligent substance having "bulk," the spirit of every other man is a similar atom; hence in the human bodies now living on the earth, there must exist nearly one thousand million _of intelligent atoms,_ each conscious of its own existence, and capable of originating motion independently of the others. Mr. Taylder says this intelligent _atom_ or _spirit_ "is capable of separation from the body, and can exist independently of the body." This being admitted, then there must be many thousand million of intelligent atoms which once inhabited bodies but now exist independently of them. This is the legitimate result of the theory which assumes that the spirit of a man is a little conscious being--a substance, simple, uncompounded and indivisible, capable of existing either in or out of a body. Where, then, Mr. Taylder, is the absurdity in believing as the "Saints" do, in the existence of immense numbers of intelligent atoms? It agrees most perfectly with the results of your own theory--the only difference is in the name. You call these little indivisible substances _immaterial,_ we call them _material._ You apply to them the same powers that we do. You believe them to be conscious, intelligent, and thinking atoms as well as we. The name of a substance does not alter its nature; as for instance some call one of the constituent elements of the atmosphere "azote," others call it "nitrogen," but all admit that it possesses the same nature and properties. If this indivisible conscious being, or atom of substance, possesses "bulk," as Bishop Butler intimates, then in this respect it is like the atoms of all other substances, and therefore it must be matter.