Augustine, Aquinas & Creation

Table of contents

Page No.

1. Introduction

2

2. St. Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430)

3

2.1 God 3

2.2 Creatio ex nihilo

4

2.3 Rationes seminales

5

2.4 The soul and hierarchy of being

6

3. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

6

3.1 Proofs for the existence of God

7

3.2 Aquinas’ creatio ex nihilo

8

3.3 Hierarchy of being and the problem of evil

9

4. Comparison between Augustine and Aquinas on the

10

1

doctrine of creation.

5. Augustine, Aquinas and Modern Natural Science

11

6. Evaluation & conclusion

13

List of references

15

2

1. Introduction

As the title indicates, this paper will attempt an exposition

as well as a comparison between the creation theories put

forth by arguably the two foremost medieval thinkers in the

Christian tradition, namely St. Augustine of Hippo and St

Thomas Aquinas. Subsequently we will look at the continued

relevance (or lack thereof) of elements of these two creation

theories in today’s philosophy, cosmology and theology.

We will firstly take a look at St Augustine, who, in some

sense, provides a bridge between the world of antiquity and

that of medieval times, since he lived during the dying days

of the Western Roman Empire. We thus find many elements of the

classical philosophers in Augustine, above all Plato and

Plotinus, whose theory of Forms and Ideas greatly influenced

Augustine’s rationes seminales as well as his understanding of

body and soul. Aquinas, on the other hand lived during the

High Middle Ages, a period which succeeded the first Crusades

and which had reintroduced the thought and philosophy of

Aristotle into Europe via the Muslim Middle East. Aquinas was

greatly influenced by Aristotle and one perceives a replay of

the dispute between Plato and Aristotle in Augustine and

Aquinas.

After having discussed and compared the doctrines of creation

of Augustine and Aquinas, we will take a brief look at their

current relevance to and compatibility with Modern Natural

Science and Church thinking as well as the current dialogue,

or lack thereof, between faith and science, creation and

3

evolution. One should bear in mind that the modern day

argument is not with Aquinas and Augustine per se, but rather

a philosophical dialogue between faith and science, creation

and evolution. Ever since Darwin’s publication of his seminal

work, The Origin of Species in 1859, science and religion have

seemingly been at odds. By the mid twentieth century, however,

science and religion had reached a modus vivendi, by which the

origin of the individual species were left to the ‘competence

of research’, but that mankind cannot be reduced to mere

biology (Horn & Wiedenhofer, 2008:8) This peaceful co-

existence has unfortunately been shattered by a new militant

secularism which has turned the theory of evolution into a

quasi-religion.

This argument has renewed interest in the origins and

originators of the Church’s teaching on subject and is thus an

appropriate subject of inquiry in today’s world.

2. St. Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430)

It is difficult to separate the theologian and the philosopher

in Augustine, and this needs to be borne in mind when looking

for philosophical arguments from him. Hence, Augustine also

seems to be less clear and more self-contradictory than

Aquinas when it comes to his theory of creation. Where Aquinas

attempts to make a clear separation between theology and

philosophy, between Faith and Reason, no such separation is

attempted by Augustine, but rather the motto credo ut intelligam

should be applied (Copleston, 1993:48).

4

In his City of God, Augustine poses the question: ‘Who made it?

How? Why?’, and answers with ‘God, by His Word and because it

is good’. (Augustine,) This is a fundamental difference

Augustine has with the Neo-Platonist philosopher, Plotinus,

who influences Augustine in quite a number of ways otherwise.

In order to explore this further, we will first turn to

aspects of Augustine’s conception of God.

2.1 God

Whereas Plotinus conceived of the One as being beyond being,

Augustine considers God to be pure Being, ultimate Being, perfect Being.

Whereas Plotinus argues that all being emanates from the One,

via the Nous (which is the first emanation, or second

hypostasis (Stumpf, 1994:126), Augustine writes that God creates

everything through the Word, which is the second person of the

Blessed Trinity (Copleston, 1993:73) However, even though all

creation comes from God and is sustained by Him, it is not co-

eternal, nor an extension of God, but distinct. God transcends

creation, God transcends time. For Augustine, God is “I Am who

Am (Ex. 3:14).

Many similarities do exist with Plato and Plotinus when it

comes to the concept of Forms or Ideas. Augustine employs the

intelligible concept of Ideas, naming them rationes, whereby all

essences, or the reason for all created things, already pre-

exist in the mind of the Creator., as he says in his Confessions

“in You live the eternal reasons of all that is temporal and will not submit to reason.”.

This concept of the eternal forms, ideas, reasons, exemplars,

will appear again in Augustine’s theory of the rationes seminales.

5

Since God is eternal and past, present and future are all one,

the exemplars or reasons of the created world are thus in some

sense eternally present in the mind of God (Copleston,

1993:72).

2.2 Creatio ex nihilo

According to Stumpf, the doctrine of creation ex nihilo is

distinctive of Augustine (Stumpf, 1994:142), and Augustine

does insist on it time and time again, in The City of God, The Literal

Interpretation of Genesis, Confessions and more. However, whereas this

doctrine of “creation out of nothing” stands in contrast and

opposition to the pagan world view that ‘prime’ matter always

existed, this point of view is held by many Christian writers

of the era, obtaining their inspiration and point of view from

the first creation story in the book of Genesis.

Central to understanding Augustine on this issue is Gen 1:1

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”.

Augustine builds most of his doctrine around Gen. 1:1,

returning to it again and again. Unlike Plato’s demiurge,

which merely informs “matter”, God creates both form and

matter. Furthermore, Augustine absolutely insists on the free

act of creation by God (City of God, XI.6). This is in

contrast to Plotinus and the Neo-Platonists that the universe

emanates from God by necessity. (Stumpf, 1993:126) He also

states in various works (The True Religion, The City of God, Genesis

defended against the Manicheans, The Confessions, The Literal Interpretation of

Genesis, inter alia) that formless matter did not pre-date this act

of creation, but was also itself created by God. “Even if the world

6

was made from some shapeless matter, this matter itself was made entirely out of

nothing…Thus all that does exist, insofar as it exists, and all that does not yet exist,

insofar as it is able to exist, is from God. This can be said in another way: all that is

shaped, insofar as it is shaped, and all that is not yet shaped, insofar as it can be

shaped, is from God (The True Religion, 18, 36)

Furthermore, to those of his opponents who claimed that the

universe existed from all eternity, Augustine replies that

saying that the universe was co-eternal with God, would imply

that God somewhere along the line changed his mind and decided

to create the universe. But, God is Absolutely Unchangeable.

Thus, time was created together with the universe, and not the

universe in time (City of God XI.6).

The fact that Gad created everything, spiritual as well as

material, is also vital in Augustine’s argument against the

Manicheans, who believed that there were two gods, one good,

one evil, the former creating the soul, and the latter

creating matter or the body, resulting in dualism. Augustine

absolutely rejects this teaching, insisting that God created

everything, including the physical body, that all natures were

created good and thus rejects the idea that anything could be

intrinsically evil (Stumpf, 1994:143). Even the fallen angels

have good natures, according to St. Augustine (City of God,

XII).

2.3. Rationes seminales

Although Augustine believes in the sequence of events as set

out in the 1st Creation story of Genesis, and at one point

defends the “Young Earth” theory in the City of God, he leaves a

7

lot of room for interpretation on the length of the different

days, considering them more as epochs or chapters of creation,

than actual days. In Genesis defended against the Manicheans, he writes

the following: And evening was made and morning was made…From this we

are to understand that these terms are used for the distinctions themselves of works

done in a certain period of time: evening on account of the conclusion of work

completed, and morning on account of the beginning of work to be done, from a

likening of it to works done by men, because for the most part they begin in the

morning and they cease in the evening. For it is customary for the divine writings

to transfer the words used in human transactions to things divine.”

Augustine’s rationes seminales, although later rejected by

Aquinas, is a very elegant way of allowing one single act of

creation by God, according to Ecclesiasticus (Sir. 18:1),

without denying the 6-day creation story as found in Genesis.

According to this theory, God created the “seeds” of

everything that was, is and will be, at once, much like

Plato’s forms and ideas. However, these things only exist in

potentiality, not actuality. Thus, for instance, the idea of

wheat was created during the initial act of creation, but the

actual wheat appeared on the earth on Day 3, subsequently

producing wheat, which then produced seed, in turn producing

more wheat (Copleston, 1993:77). All species were thus created

in potentiality right at the beginning of creation. It should

be borne in mind that Augustine came up with this explanation

as an exegetical tool, presented by the problem of

Ecclesiasticus and should not be misconstrued as having

notions of evolution in the Darwinian sense of the word.

(1993:77). Stumpf and various other modern writers do see the

8

potential for a theory of evolution present in the rationes

seminales (Stumpf, 1993:144).

2.4 The soul and hierarchy of being

Augustine, in the City of God, elaborates rather extensively

on the creation of the angels and the hierarchy of beings,

sentient beings being higher that non-sentient beings, living

higher than inanimate, spiritual higher than corporeal. Humans

stand between the angels and the material world, possessing

both a material body and an immaterial and immortal soul.

Animals also have souls, but these are not immortal, since

soul here seems to be equated with the power of reason.

Augustine does not categorically deny the pre-existence of the

soul, but strongly rejects the Platonist notion of trans-

migration. On the other hand, he insists on the distinctness

of the soul and the body as two entities. This leaves room for

notions of the soul being good and the body being evil.

Augustine himself, however, insists that all natures and

everything that was created, was created good, including the

body (City of God, XIV, 5). Evil results from an evil will,

not an evil nature, and since the will is a function of the

soul, it is thus rather the soul that corrupts the body than

vice versa!

Another aspect of Augustine’s thought on the soul, is whether

each soul is created separately by God, or whether one soul

was created in Adam and thence passed on to subsequent

9

generations, referred to as Traducianism. This would make the

doctrine of original sin easier to explain, where the initial

taint is handed on from one generation to the next. Copleston

writes that ‘traducianism is inconsistent with a clear affirmation of the soul’s

spiritual and immaterial character” (1993:80).

3. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

Thomas Aquinas has had an immense influence on Catholic

theology and it would thus be fitting to include him in any

discussion on a doctrine as contentious as creation. Whereas

Augustine was influenced by Platonism and Plotinus, Aquinas

was influenced by Plato’s disciple and later critic,

Aristotle. As a matter of fact, Aquinas’ vocabulary and

methodology is drenched in Aristotelian logic, terminology and

understanding. That said, Aquinas did not blindly follow

Aristotle, or merely “Christianise” him, but instead provided

us with a sophisticated synthesis of Aristotle and Neo-

Platonism (Richards, 2010). In order to understand Aquinas’

‘doctrine of creation’, one should firstly turn to his

understanding and ‘proofs’ for the existence of God.

3.1 Proofs for the existence of God

Aquinas deduces the existence of God through sense experience

and knowledge thus obtained, in other words, working ‘bottom-

up’ instead of ‘top-down’ if one may use such and expression

in philosophy.

His first ‘proof for the existence of God is that of motion.

An object which is at rest is potentially in motion, but not

10

actually. Potency, however, is nothing. But in order for the

object to move from potency to act, something needs to move it

from outside. Stumpf (1994:181) uses the example of dominoes.

One domino can make the next domino fall tumble, setting off a

chain reaction. However, something, which is not a domino, has

to move the very first domino in order for this chain reaction

to be set off Likewise, everything in nature which passes from

potency to act, needs something to initiate this movement.

This prime of First Mover, Aquinas equates with God, who is

pure Act (:182).

The second proof, is one ‘efficient cause’. An artist is the

efficient cause of a statue. Parents are the efficient causes

of their offspring. But, travelling back through time, one

cannot have an infinite number of efficient causes. There has

to be an Efficient Cause which had no prior efficient cause.

Again, Aquinas equates this with God (Stumpf, 194:182)

The third proof, which for Stumpf (1994:183) is the most

defensible and philosophically valid, is the proof from

‘Necessary versus possible Being’. A person is born today,

grows up, grows old and eventually dies. Likewise with trees

and animals. What is today, was not yesterday and will not be

tomorrow. These beings are considered to be possible or

contingent beings. I exist – but not before 1971 – and I might

as well never have existed. But if everything was merely

possible, nothing might as well have existed. Our senses

confirm that things do exist, ergo, there must be a Being which

is necessary for the existence of all other beings. Again,

Aquinas equates this Necessary Being with God. (:183)11

The fourth proof is the perfection being, stating that all

beings tend to perfection, aiming to be better, nobler, truer,

smarter, etc. However, something which is plusqua perfectum in

every respect must necessarily exist, being God. The fifth

proof is that which is derived from the order perceived in the

universe. There must be intelligent design to keep the planets

in their orbits, to make the various organs of the body work

in harmony. Stumpf writes: “Aquinas concludes, therefore, that

‘some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are

directed to their ends, and this being we call God’”

(1994:184).

Thus, God having being established as the Prime Mover, the

First Cause, the Necessary Being, Perfect Being and Orderer of

the Universe and Final Cause, we can turn to the other aspects

of Aquinas’ doctrine of creation. For this, we shall turn

mostly to Aquinas’ “Treatise on Creation’ in his seminal work,

the Summa Theologica’ (ST Ia).

3.2 Aquinas’ Creatio ex Nihilo’

Aquinas agrees with Augustine that God created the world

freely out of nothing. His methodology is far more

philosophical and Aristotelian however.

Aquinas starts off his argument by saying that, God being the

First Cause and Necessary Being, all other creatures that have

being, participate in the One Being of God. He says the

following in the Summa: ”Therefore all beings apart from God are not their

own being, but are beings by participation,…are caused by the First Being, who

possesses being most perfectly.” (S.T. 1q, 44, 1). Aquinas also teaches

12

that primary matter was likewise created by God, out of

nothing. He relies heavily on the hylomorphism of Aristotle in

order to prove this theory. For Aquinas, primary matter is

pure potentiality. For anything to have being, it must have

actuality, and this can only be obtained by the union of form

with matter. Thus, matter and form are concreated – pure

matter cannot exist without form, and since form is created by

God, so also matter. (Copleston, 1993:327).

God is also the Exemplar and Final Cause of all things. The

exemplar functions somewhat like forms in Platonism, with the

distinct difference that they subsist in the mind of God and

not in matter per se. On his treatise on the Trinity, Aquinas

equates Christ with the Exemplar Cause. As far as the motive

for creation, God creates freely not to add anything to his

greatness. God is completely self-sufficient and omniscient

and nothing can possibly add to God’s greatness. God creates

freely, simply because it is good. To say that God is the

Final Cause, does not imply that God created in order to have

a chorus of admirers. All created beings exist because of and

for God, however (Copleston, 1993:366).

On whether God created from all eternity, Aquinas differs from

St Augustine in the sense that he concludes that it cannot be

conclusively proven that the world did not always exist. In

the Summa Theologica (ST.1q 46.a2,) he states that ‘the newness

of the world cannot be demonstrated on the part of the world

itself.’ It should be borne in mind, that Aquinas, more so

than Augustine, accepted at face value the Creation account in

Genesis 1. The ‘newness’ of the world would thus imply 6,00013

years. However, Aquinas says that this should be accepted as

an object of faith rather than science or demonstration

(S.T.1a. 46.2).

3.3 Hierarchy of being and the problem of evil.

Just like Augustine (who took his inspiration from Plotinus),

Aquinas denies that evil is something positive, that is to say

a thing in itself, but rather the negation or absence of

‘good’. Aquinas says, that since every nature desires its own

perfection, every nature is ‘good’ (S.T.1 q.48.1). However,

Aquinas, much like Augustine, also believes in a hierarchy of

being – the lowest plant being closest to inanimate matter,

the highest plants being closest to sentient beings, the

highest sentient beings resembling humans, followed by the

lowest of angels (each and every angel is its own species)

which are nearest to humans and the highest angel being

closest and most like God. This hierarchy of being and

different grades of perfection are necessary for the total

perfection of creation, and thus certain beings are more

perfect in their goodness than others. Some grades of goodness

cannot fail, but the good found in existence can (S.T.1

q.48.2).

Copleston explains that, as it was willed by God that some

things are thus mortal and corruptible, it could be said that

God created physical evil per accident. However, moral evil

exists because people have free will. God could have created

humans without the capacity to choose, but then people would

not have been free to love God of their own free will. Man’s

14

capacity to choose is thus a greater good. The fact that sin

and moral evil results from this freedom is unfortunate but

cannot be blamed on God or considered in such a way whereby

God is implicated in having created moral evil, by accident.

(Copleston, 1993:373).

4. Comparison between Augustine and Aquinas on the doctrine of

creation.

I mentioned in the Introduction that many of the differences

between Augustine and Aquinas are due to their respective

philosophical traditions, Augustine being Platonic and

Aquinas, Aristotelian. Augustine is also more theological

n=than philosophical in his doctrine of creation, starting as

it were with Gen.1:1 and proceeding thence, whereas Aquinas is

more philosophical in his argumentation, and commences with

sense experience, working his way up from creation to God, via

the causes.

As can be seen from the above, Augustine and Aquinas greatly

agreed on the concept of creatio ex nihilo, the hierarchy of being

and on the nature of evil. A further point of agreement is the

fact that both scholars firmly insist upon the fact that only

God created the universe, without any assistance from

intermediary agents. Both Augustine and Aquinas agreed that

God creates freely, without compunction, without emanation or

diminishing Himself as a result. God is not part of creation,

but stands apart from it – the wholly Other. However, God is

not only transcendent but also immanent. God’s creative act is

also continuous, meaning that He holds all of creation in

15

being, quoting St Paul “He exists before all things and in Him all things hold

together (Col. 1:17). This was obviously further explained with

Aquinas’ teaching on Necessary Being. Without God’s constant

involvement, the entire universe would cease to exist.

A very important point of disagreement lies in Augustine’s

theory of rationes seminales, which Aquinas rejects completely. This

difference could be ascribed to the differences existing

between Plato and Aristotle when it comes to form and matter. It

follows that, because pure matter is potentiality and not act,

it cannot exist in and of itself and thus the notion that

matter could contain the seeds of further development, would

mean that matter also consists of act and thus the rationes

seminales cannot exist. Change is educed from the outside, by an

efficient agent. Thus, for instance, water has the

potentiality to become steam, but needs the efficient agent of

heat to effect this change. (Copleston, 1993:328). This

complete rejection, notwithstanding, Aquinas’ Exemplar cause,

which he later identifies with Christ, has many similarities

with the ‘exemplars’ of Augustine’s rationes seminales.

A second interesting difference due to this different

conception of form and matter is their respective views on

life after death. For both Augustine and Aquinas, form is

equated with the soul and matter with the body. Because of

Augustine’s Platonic outlook, the soul can exist without the

body and is thus freed from the body after death. For Aquinas,

however, form cannot exist without matter, thus imposing an

absolute requirement for a resurrected body after death, since

the soul is immortal. (Copleston, 1993:425). Linked to their16

different conceptions of soul and body, form and matter,

mention should also be made of Aquinas’ rejection of

traduciansim, teaching that God creates every human soul

individually at the moment of conception.

Lastly, Augustine and Aquinas also differ on the

interpretation of Genesis 1, more specifically on the length

of the ‘days’ recounted in the creation story. Whereas

Augustine had a metaphorical interpretation of the length of

the 6 days of creation, Aquinas held to the strict literal

interpretation of the 6 days of creation being 6 actual days.

He also rejected Augustine’s point of view that God created in

potentiality rather than actually, due to his rejection of

Augustine’s theory of the rationes seminales. Whenever science was

in conflict with Scripture, Aquinas would reply: ”On the

contrary, suffices the authority of Scripture.” (Richards,

2010)

5. Augustine, Aquinas and Modern Natural Science

Modern natural science broadly (with some disagreement) holds

to a cosmology based on the Big Bang theory, and

‘evolutionism’ as propagated by Charles Darwin. Since the

advent of the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century and the

likes of Newton and Descartes, humankind has been probing the

mysteries of the universe by means of reason and intellect,

seeking natural explanations to phenomena which were

heretofore considered mysteries.

In so doing, science has irrevocably changed the way we view

the universe, compared to the worldview of the ancients and

17

the people of the Middle Ages. We now know for certain that

the earth, together with all the other planets, revolves

around the sun in an elliptical orbit, and not vice versa. The

earth has been relegated from being the centre of the

universe, to a pale blue dot, orbiting an insignificant star

in a galaxy that is 100,000 light years across in a universe

which contains around 170 billion galaxies (and counting) just

like it. Furthermore, it has been rather conclusively proven

that our planet is not 6,000 years old. The debacle with

Galileo aside, the Church has been remarkably accepting of

scientific theories, such as the Big Bang theory which was

formulated by a Belgian priest. The theory of evolution and

Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, was never placed on the Index of

banned literature. (McBrien, 1994:104).

On whether Augustine and Aquinas’ views on Creation are

compatible with Modern Natural Science, this author is of the

opinion that such a question would be unfair. Neither

Augustine nor Aquinas attempted or claimed to provide

scientific answers to essentially theological and

philosophical questions. Has cosmology changed and evolved

since the Middle Ages? The answer has to be an unequivocal

“YES”. But this is beside the point. Both Augustine and

Aquinas accepted the cosmology of their age. They were not the

developers of their own cosmologies, but receivers of the

(Ancient Greek) Ptolemaic cosmology whereby the earth was

considered to be at the centre of the universe and the sun,

moon and stars revolved around the earth in circular orbits.

This (universal) view was not challenged until the advent of

18

Copernicus’ heliocentric view of the cosmos (15th century).

Aquinas’ belief that the earth was created in 6 actual days

aside, his and Augustine’s doctrine of creation remain

theologically valid. It would be unfair of us to expect anyone

from the 13th century to have had even a notion of the actual

size and age of the universe just as much as we do not hold

the priestly writer of Genesis 1 accountable for the

Babylonian cosmology of his day and age.

Unfortunately, “evolutionism” has become far more than

scientific theory, but rather an entire system of belief to

the extent that the belief in evolution, to many observers,

implies an automatic denial of the existence of God. The

argument is no longer scientific, but rather interpretative,

namely design or chance? (Horn & Wiedenhofer, 2008:8) Pope

emeritus Benedict XVI, in a preface to a collection of papers

from a symposium on the question of creation vs. evolution in

1986, wrote the following: “ Today, a new age of the debate has been

reached, inasmuch as evolution has been exalted above and beyond its scientific

content and made into an intellectual model that claims to explain the whole of

reality and thus has become a sort of ‘first philosophy’” (Horn & Wiedenhofer,

2008:9) There also seems to be confusion between the concepts

‘creationism’ and Creation, which will first need to be

clarified.

“Creationism” refers to the literal interpretation of the

creation story as found in Genesis 1. This view is held by

many Protestant fundamentalist groups in the United States as

well as South Africa. These faith communities hold that the

Bible is the literal word of God and even seek to defend the19

six chronological days of creation scientifically. Cardinal

Schônborn states the Catholic condemnation of this doctrine

most eloquently by quoting St Thomas Aquinas himself: “ One

should not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that make it ridiculous,

because they are in obvious contradiction with reason.” (S.T. 1q 32. a.1)

(Schônborn, 2007:37). It should be noted the author, as well

as informed Catholics, reject this literal interpretation. The

unofficial teaching of the Catholic Church is that of theistic

evolution.

6. Evaluation & Conclusion

St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas are two figures which

exemplify the adage that our prejudices belong to our time or

epoch, but our virtues are our own.

My points of agreement with both scholars are virtually all

philosophical-theological and points of disagreement,

scientific. However, neither Augustine nor Aquinas claimed to

be scientists and this has to be borne in mind when attempting

to seek relevance for either of them in the present day

polemic between creation and evolution. Their arguments are

theological and philosophical, and in this regard they remain

very much relevant.

First and foremost in my disagreement with both scholars,

would be their primitive cosmology and literal interpretation

of Genesis 1. It is however interesting how a theological

argument regarding the creation of the universe in time is

being proven by modern day physics. That said, the mere notion

that the earth could have brought forth plant-life before the

20

sun existed, Secondly, I believe Aquinas takes his doctrine

of hylomorphism too far and prefer Augustine’s concept of form

and matter as being somewhat more separable, especially when

considering the immortality of the soul without the body. The

whole idea of matter not being able to exist without form is

foreign to the modern mind.

Both Augustine and Aquinas tend to contradict themselves – or

fail to seek clarity. For instance Augustine’s notion of

traducianism, which states that humans inherit / receive their

souls from their parents, whilst at the same time receiving a

soul directly from God. Instead of trying to resolve the

issue, Augustine concludes that humans have two souls.

My points of agreement are more numerous than the points of

disagreement, however. To estimate the influence that these

two saints have had on the thought and teaching of the

Catholic Church, we will look at a quick summary of the main

points of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) on the

subject:

God creates by wisdom and love (CCC 295)

God creates out of nothing (ex nihilo) (CCC 296-298)

God creates an ordered and good world (CCC 299)

God transcends creation and is present to it (CCC 300)

God upholds and sustains creation (creatio continua) (CCC 301)

From looking at the doctrines of creation of both Augustine

and Aquinas, it should be clear that virtually all the points

on which these two great men of the Church concurred, have

been absorbed into present day Church teaching, which renders

21

a study of both relevant to today’s discussion / argument

between creation and evolution.

If one looks beyond their primitive cosmology, one finds a

depth of theological truth and perception that has stood the

test of time. Since the dialogue between faith and science has

graduated from empirical truths to philosophy, philosophical

arguments need to be sought and Augustine and Aquinas is a

good place to start. This does not mean that one should try to

update either of them to fit one’s purposes (for instance

trying to equate Augustine’s notion of rationes seminales with

evolution). Nor should one only study Augustine and Aquinas in

order to obtain an informed view about Church teaching

regarding creation. Much has been written on the subject in

recent decades by recognised scientists and theologians and

thought is definitely evolving.

In a purely scientific forum, however, Augustine and Aquinas

would be completely out dated and ludicrous. By the same

token, one would not bring the Bible to a discussion on

quantum physics. But, as I have already stated, neither of

them were scientists. Their teachings are ‘doctrines’ and not

‘scientific theories’ and they should be respected and treated

as such.

List of references

22

Aquinas, T. The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas. Translated by

the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. London: Burns,

Oates & Washbourne Ltd.

Augustine. City of God. Translated by G. G. Walsh & G. Monahan.

1962. Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press.

Augustine. 1961. Confessions. Baltimore: Penguin Books Inc.

Augustine. Genesis defended against the Manicheans. Translated by W.A.

Jürgens. 1964. New Delhi: Theological Publications in India,

St Peter’s Seminary.

Augustine. The literal interpretation of Genesis. Translated by W. A.

Jürgens. 1964. New Delhi: Theological Publications in India,

St Peter’s Seminary

Augustine. The true religion. Translated by W. A. Jürgens. 1964. New

Delhi: Theological Publications in India, St Peter’s Seminary.

Copleston, F. 1993. A history of philosophy, volume II: Medieval philosophy.

New York: Doubleday.

Horn, S. O. & Wiedenhofer, S. 2008. Creation and evolution: a

conference with Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo. San Framcisco:

Ignatius Press.

McBrien, R. P. 1994. Catholicism. New edition. New York: Harper

Collins Publishers.

Richards, J. W. 2010. What was Thomas Aquinas’ view of creation?

Evolution Views and News. [Online] Available from http://www.

http://www.evolutionnews.org [cited 27 September 2013]

23

Schönborn, C. 2007. Chance or purpose. San Francisco: Ignatius

Press.

Stumpf, S. E. 1994. Socrates to Sartre – a history of Philosophy. 5th

edition. New York. McGraw-Hill Inc.

24