not from the side of the singular, which is per se intelligible; just as it is not the sun’s fault if it is invisible, but the fault of one’s vision in the night, or of one’s eyes.” In consequence (op. cit., p. 491), there is no reason why the angels may not know the individual, because it is essentially intelligible. Just so, too, there is no reason why there should not be as many individual angels of the same species as God is pleased to create.
IV
CRITICAL COMPARISON OF THE THOMISTIC AND SCOTISTIC THEORIES
Possibly these scholastic subtleties may appear ineffective and wearisome; yet to me, I confess, they constitute an almost indispensable introduction to the study of our problem. The scholastic angelology always furnishes an admirable means for the definition of the nature of finite rational individuality as such, by reason of the ease with which this doctrine of the angels can hypothetically abstract from the empirical conditions of our human life. So that a modern student of philosophy may well envy the scholastics their angels. A metaphysician needs illustrations, and the angel is a peculiarly neat and charming sort of illustration. For the rest, the doctrines of Duns Scotus and Thomas are as instructive by reason of their essential agreement as to the main problem, as by reason of their really non-essential differences. The doctrines show one where the
