1. See the interesting ruminations of Smith, W. C., The Meaning and End of Religion (New York, 1962),Google Scholar ch. 2: “‘Religion’ in the West.”

2. Albert Salomon makes a helpful distinction between sociology of religion and the religion of sociology in In Praise of Enlightenment: Essays in the History of Ideas (Cleveland, 1962), pp. 390–393.Google Scholar

3. Ibid., p. 393, on Bernard Fontenelle and Pierre Bayle.

4. The nominalists taught that universals are a creation of the human mind.

5. I have studied conflict over this problem in my Carlstadt's ‘Ordinaciones’ and Luther's Liberty: a Study of the Wittenberg Movement 1521–1522 (Cambridge, 1974).Google Scholar

6. Pannier, Jacques, “Calvin et les Turcs,” Revue Historique 180 (1937): 285.Google Scholar Calvin was more concerned about the invasion of Europe by Turkish armies than about Islam as a religion.

7. Cf. Zwingli's, reference in the Commentarius to “mundus iste immundus,” Huldreich Zwinglis samtliche Werke, 14 vols. (Corpus Reformatorum, vols. 88 ff.) (Leipzig and Berlin, 1905 ff), 3.630.34 (hereafterZ);Google ScholarThe Latin Works of Huldreich Zwingli, eds. S. M. Jackson et al., 3 vols. (New York and Philadelphia, 1912, 1922, 1929), 3.47Google Scholar (hereafter WZ).

8. “Nam ubi nulla est Dei cognitio certa, nulla est etiam religio, et pietas prorsus exstincta est, et fides abolita.” Commentary on Hosea 6:6;Google ScholarIoannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia, eds. G. Baum, E. Cunitz, E. Reuss, 59 vols. (CR vols. 29 ff.) (Brunsvigae, Schwetschke, 1863–1900), 42.331Google Scholar (hereafter CO).

9. See Atkinson, Geoffroy, Les Relations de voyages du VXIIe siecle et l'évolution des idées (Paris, 1924);Google ScholarHodgen, Margaret T., Early Anthropology in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Philadelphia, 1964);CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Hazard, Paul, The European Mind, tr. May, J. L. (Cleveland, 1967), ch. 1.Google Scholar

10. So Zwingli, , De vera et falsa religione commentarius (1525)Google Scholar (hereafter Comm.), in Z 3603.4 f. WZ 3.46.

11. Comm., Z 3.638. 35–639.3; WZ 3.56.

12. Zwingli, writes, “Si ergo is cultus, ea pietas, aut religio vana est, quae ex humana inventione aut lege proficiscitur, solida nimirum e diverso veraque est religio, quae juxta solius dei verbum dirigitur, quae unum hoc spectat et audit.” Comm., Z 3.672.25–28; WZ 3.95.Google Scholar

13. Pünjer, G. Ch. B., History of the Christian Philosophy of Religion from the Reformation to Kant, tr. Hastie, W. (Edinburgh, 1887), p. 149;Google Scholar but, as we see below, the image of God creates at least a need in man that remains unfulfilled, presumably even had there been no fall.

14. Comm., Z 3.639. 18–20; WZ 3.57.

15. Comm., Z 3.640. 20–22; WZ 3.58: Under the heading “Inter quos constet religio,” Zwingli explains: “religio fines duos complecitur, alterum: in quem tendit religio, alterum: qui religione tendit in alterum…”

16. Comm., Z 3.64023 f.; WZ 3.58: “oportebit, ut de utroque extremo dicamus. Hoc est: Cum deus sit, in quem tendit religio, homo vero, qui religione tendit in eum.” It appears that by concentrating on the reciprocity of knowledge (of self and God) rather than on the intrinsically reciprocal nature of religio, Calvin has opened the way for a more purely anthropological notion of religio than we find in Zwingli.

17. Comm., Z 3.669. 17 f.; WZ 3.92: “Vera religio, vel pietas, haec est, quae uni solique deo haeret.” A fuller rendition, embracing the historical moments that give rise to this embrace of God, appears in Comm., Z 3.668. 23–33; WZ 3.91.

18. Comm., 2 3.667. 19–21; WZ 3.89: “Relinquat Deus Adamum! Nunquam redebit ad eum, a quo aufugit; relinquat hominem! Numquam eum quaeret, a quo creatus est.”

19. Comm., 2 3.66721 f.; WZ 3.89.

20. Comm., Z 3.667. 30–32; WZ 3.89 f.: “Hic ergo religionem originem sumpsisse luce clarius videmus, ubi deus hominem fugitivum ad se revocavit, qui alioqui perpetuus desertor futurus erat.”

21. Commentary on Genesis 3: 9, Z 13.25. 13–18. Although the Genesis lectures of Zwingli were not published until 1527, they were delivered in 1525, the same year that the Commentarius was published, and make mention of the Comm., Z 13.26.37 f.

22. Comm., 2 3.668. 12–15; WZ 3.90: “Oritur ergo pietas a deo usque ad hodiernum diem, sed in nostrum usum.” The same is said in Commentary on Genesis 3: 9, Z 13.25.38–26.4.

23. Calvin, John, Institutio Christianae Religionis (1559Google Scholar ed., unless otherwise indicated) 1.12.1 (hereafter Inst.); CO 2.87; Library of Christian Classics 20.117 (hereafter LCC.)

24. Comm., Z 3.639. 12–14; WZ 3.56 f.: “Religionis vocabulum a relegendo Cicero de natura deorum lib. 2 [.28(72)] derivatum esse putat, quod qui religiosi essent solicite cuncta retractarent, ac velut relegerent, quae ad deorum cultum pertinerent.”

25. Comm., Z 3.639. 14–18; WZ 3.57.

26. Cf. Comm., Z 3.63818; WZ 3.55 f.: “Scripturo de vera falsaque religione Christianorum…” ibid., 639.3 f.; WZ 3.56: “de vera falsaque Christianorum religione.”

27. Pfister, Rudolf, Die Seligkeit erwählter Heiden bei Zwingli (Zürich, 1952);Google ScholarRich, Arthur, Die Anfänge der Theologie Huldrych Zwinglis (Zürich, 1949);Google ScholarLocher, Gottfried W., “Grundzüge der Theologie H. Zwinglis im Vergleich mit derjenigen M. Luthers und Johannes Calvins.” Zwingliana 12/8 (1967): 470–509; 545–595;Google Scholar and idem, “Change in the Understanding of Zwingli in Recent Research,” Church History 34 (1965): 3–24—an excellent beginning point for English readers; G. Pünjer, see above, n. 13; Dilthey, Wilhelm, Weltanschauung und Analyse des Menschen seit Renaissance und Reformation (Gesammelte Schriften Bd. II, Leipzig und Berlin, 1923).Google Scholar Leohnard von Muralt, in his review of Pfister, (Zwingliana 10/6 [1956]: 404–408)Google Scholar noted the trend to which I refer.

28. Some of PfIster's documentation is unconvincing because the context of his quotations is not given. His best text for demonstrating that Zwingli's position is really predestinanan rather than universalistic is given on p. 74, n. 30a: “Habet enim et habuit semper et in gentibus deus, quos ante jacta fundamenta mundi in christo ad iustitiam et vitamelegit” (cited from H. Zwinglis Werke, eds. M. Schuler and J. Schultess [Zürich, 1828–1842], 6.1.242,Google Scholar to which I do not have access). Dilthey acknowledges that the human God-consciousness is the result of a continuing divine activity in the soul (pp. 225 f.), but Pfister (p. 83 n. 16) objects to his referring to this as “universalism,” since it entails God's special electing activity. Pending evidence that grace or religious truth, according to Zwingli, is universally available for the taking, Pfister's criticism stands.

29. Comm., Z 3662.5 f. and 21; WZ 3.83.

30. Comm., Z 3.662. 6–8; WZ 3.83. Contrast Calvin, below, n. 63.

31. Comm., Z 3.641. 14–17; WZ 3.59: “Videmus hic aperte, quod dei est ea, quam nos naturae nescio cui ferimus acceptam, de deo notitia. ‘Deus enim,’ inquit, ‘manifestavit’. Et natura quid aliud est, quam continens perpetuaque dei operatio, rerumque omnium dispositio?”

32. Comm., Z 3.64120 f.; WZ 3.59. Cf. 654. 16–23 and 643. 12–14, where Zwingli quotes Isaiah 45: 15 (“Vere tu es Deus absconditus”) and comments, “Constat, quod a solo deo discendum quid ipse sit.”

33. Comm., Z 3.643. 20–24; WZ 3.62: “Fucus ergo est et falso religio, quicquid a theologis ex philosophia ‘quid sit deus’ allatum est. Quod si quidam de hoc quaedam vere dixerunt, ex ore dei fuit, qui cognitionis suae semina quaedam etiam in gentes sparsit, quamvis parcius et obscurius; alioqui verum non esset.” Locher discusses this passage on pp. 545 f. Because revelation is its source, true religion is everywhere the same. “For true piety has one and the same character among all men and is the same in all, because it originates by one and the same Spirit.” Exposition of the Christian Faith, 1531; WZ 2.239; Zwingli Hauptschriften, eds. F. Blanke, O. Farner, and R. Pfister, 8 vols. (Zurich, 1940–1952), 2.304Google Scholar (hereafter ZH).

34. Comm., Epilogue, Z 3.908. 29–30; WZ 3.339.

35. Comm., Epilogue, Z 3.908. 4–13; WZ 3.338 f. Pfister cites the following from Commentary on Matthew 15: 14 in support of the same idea: “Qui veritatem loquitur, ex deo loquitur, etiam ethnicus” (p. 28, n. 19). Such statements indicate that Zwingli does not make any distinction between “general” and “special” revelation, between the Christian's and the philosopher's knowledge of God (cf.Richard, George W., WZ 3.6,Google Scholar Introduction). lam not clear on how the knowledge of Christ might qualify such a statement for Zwingli, although he insists that even the elect heathen come to God through Christ (see above, n. 28).

36. Comm., Z 3.642. 6–8; WZ 3.60:“… omnibus ferme Gentibus in hoc esse consensum, ut deus sit, quamvis ipsum alii plures faciebant, alii pauciores, paucissimi unum.” Belief in the gods entailed recognition of an unknown power (ignota vis) surpassing that of men (ibid., 642.16). Zwingli defines “the faithful” as monotheists (ibid., 642.13 f.), and attributes their belief to divine agency (ibid., 642.34–37; WZ 3.61). Calvin, by contrast, believes monotheism is an innate possibility: Inst. 1.10.3.

37. De peccato originali (1526), Z 5.379. 22–26 (indicated by Pfister, p. 74, n. 29): “Quis, quaesco, hanc fidem in cor hominis scripsit? Neque quisquam putet ista in evacuationem Christi tendere, ut quidam nos insimulant; amplificant enim illius gloriam. Per Christum enim accedere opportet, quicumque ad deum veniunt.” Those Gentiles referred to by Paul (Rom. 2: 14–16) who do the law are elect, coming to God through Christ (ibid., 380.15–18): “Breviter, inconcussa est electio, et lex in hominum mentibus scripta, sic tamen, ut, qui electi sunt et qui legis opus faciunt ex lege in cor scripta, per solum Christum ad deum veniant.” I have not found in Zwingli clear indication whether he considers all pagans who are (spirit-inspired) sources of authentic religious truths to be also among the elect. In some contexts, Zwingli marvels how God can use pagans as spokesmen for truth; in others, he points to manifestations of outstanding pagan virtue as signs of election to salvation. Certainly there is overlap, but a distinction between the two groups is not ruled out by any text I have found. Pfister (p. 74, n. 29) notes that Seneca is listed by Zwingli among the elect in at least one place, and Cicero is much admired; yet neither name appears on the famous list of elect heathen given in the Expositio (see below, n. 40).

38. Pfister, p. 14. Mueller, G. E. offers the following from Zwingli's Werke, Eine Auswahl (Zürich 1918), p. 789:Google Scholar “I prefer Socrates or Seneca, who acknowledged the one deity and who endeavored to please him, to the Roman pope who presents himself in God's stead” (“Zwingli as a Religious Philosopher,” Hibbert Journal 58 [1960]: 169).Google Scholar

39. Pfister, p. 14.

40. Zwingli lists among those whom he expects to join in heaven Hercules, Theseus, Socrates, Aristides, Antigonus, Numa, Camillus, the Catos, the Scipios (Exposition of the Christian Faith, 1531, ZH 11.349: WZ 2.272). The ad hoc character of the list is evident, Pfister notes (p. 87), from the absence of such names as Plato and Pythagoras, Seneca and Cicero. Still, as stated above (n. 37), I see no reason in principle why a non-elect heathen might not be the source of some particular religious truth, given by the Spirit.

41. Pfister, pp. 14 f. n. 3, containing numerous references by Zwingli to Islam.

42. Z 1.347.33–348.2 LCC 24.64: “… Diser atem des lebens… hat im on zwyfel die begird nit nun lypliches sunder ewigen lebens ingeben unnd anerboren, das er allweg nach dem sünfftze [seufze, sich nach dem sehne], der im zum ersten das leben and atem ingekuchet hat.”

43. Z 1.346.8–10, LCC 24.62: “… die begird nach got, die ein ieder mensch in im empfindt, uns anerborn ist, indem das wir nach der bildnuss gottes geschaffen und siner art unnd geschlecrs sind.…”

44. Z 1.344.24–30, LCC 24.62. Another indication of Zwingli's narrow scope of interest is that elsewhere he uses this text as an occasion for instructing the Christian community that, since its head is Christ, nothing can come from us, his offspring, independent of him (Auslegen und Grund der Schlussreden [1523], Z 2.65. 20–26).

45. Z 1.352.33–354.3, LCC 24.68.

46. See Dowey, Edward A. Jr, The Knowledge of God in Calvin's Theology (New York, 1952), pp. 50–56,Google Scholar on the sensus divinitatis. A detailed exposition of Calvin's use of Cicero in the opening section of the Institutes is provided by Grislis, Egil, “Calvin's Use of Cicero in the Institutes 1: 1–5—A Case Study in Theological Methods,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 62 (1971), 5–37.Google Scholar On the appeal of Stoicism in the sixteenth century see Breen, Quirinus, John Calvin: a Study in French Humanism (2d ed.Grand Rapids, 1968), pp. 67Google Scholar ff., laying the background of Calvin's Seneca commentary, and partially dependent upon Zanta, Léontine, La Renaissance du Stoicisme au XVIe Siècle (Paris, 1914).Google Scholar Cf. Wendel, Francois, Calvin. The Origins and Development of His Religious Thought, tr. Mairet, Philip (New York, 1963), pp. 27 ff.;Google Scholar and Dilthey, pp. 153–161.

47. Grislis, p. 14. One important respect in which Calvin differs from Cicero: Calvin rejects the idea “that errors disappear with the lapse of time, and that religion grows and becomes better each day” (Inst. 1.3.3, LCC 20.46). It is only the persistence of the sense of divinity in man that prevents religion from degenerating completely.

48. Inst. 1.3.1, CO 2.36; LCC 20.44.

49. Ibid.

50. Other references: Inst. 1.3.2 and 3; 1.4.1 and 4; 1.5.1 and 15. Cf. Commentary on John 1: 5, where Calvin distinguishes the seed of religion from the moral sense. Both are innate, but they are distinct capabilities (Ed. note to Inst. 1.3.1, LCC 20.43 n. 2). I find no references in this context to the imago dei, nor does Calvin, in his Genesis commentary on 1:26 f. make any reference to the sense of divinity being discussed here. Classical and biblical language are combined in Calvin's comment on the first chapters of Romans, , esp. Commentary on Romans 2: 14 and 15,Google ScholarCO 49.37 f.

51. Seneca Ep. 117.6, quoted by Horowitz, Maryanne Cline, “The Stoic Synthesis of the Idea of Natural Law in Man: Four Themes,” Journal of the History of Ideas 35 (1974): 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar f. Horowitz has applied her study of Stoicism to the work of Charron, Pierre in “Pierre Charron's View of the Source of Wisdom,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 9 (1971): 443–457,Google Scholar and in “Natural Law as the Foundation for an Autonomous Ethic: Pierre Charron's De Ia Sagesse,” Studies in the Renaissance 21 (1974): 204–227.Google Scholar

52. Cicero, De natura deorum 1.62 (Stutgart, Teubner, 1964), p. 24 lines 28 f.:Google ScholarThe Nature of the Gods, tr. H.C.P. McGregor [Penguin Books, 1972], p. 94).Google Scholar

53. Ibid. 1.43, Teubner 18.10 f.: “Solus enim vidit primum esse deos, quod in omnium animis eorum notionem inpressisset ipsa natura.” The Stoic Balbus repeats this view in 2.12 (Teubner 54. 5 f.): “Itaque inter omnis omnium gentium summa constat; omnibus enim innatum est et in animo quasi inscuiptum esse deos.” Horowitz clarifies the precise meaning of innate ideas in Stoic philosophy, and in Cicero, pp. 8 ff.

54. Inst. 1.5.15. CO 2.52. The thought is most clearly stated in Commentary on Acts 14: 17, CO 48.327: “… genus hoc testimonii … tale fuisse, quod homines excusationee privaret, non autem sufficeret in salutem.”

55. Inst. 1.6.2, CO 2.54; LCC 20.72.

56. Inst. 2.1.8, CO 2.183. Cf. Inst. 1.4.4.

57. Inst. 1.3.2, CO 2.37 “… ex quo velut semine emergit ad religionem propensio.”

58. De scandalis (1550), Calvini opera selecta, eds. P. Barth and G. Niesel (Monachii, 1926-), 2.202. 10–14.Google Scholar

59. Three later writers who bear formal similarity to Zwingli, i.e. who (1) do not treat religion as having its basis in an innate endowment of human nature, and (2) leave room—theoretically if not in fact—for a divine revelation, are Pierre Charron, Bernard Fontenelle and David Hume. I intend to deal with these authors elsewhere.

60. Inst. 1.3.3, Co 2.38; LCC 20.46 f. Roy W. Battenhouse is quite right, I think, that Calvin's anthropology is more Platonic than Hebrew; however, this does not mean that Calvin's view tends to Pelagianism, or that one can fully understand Calvin's view of human existence in abstraction from its ecclesiastical context, as Battenhouse tends to do (“The Doctrine of Man in Calvin and in Renaissance Platonism,” Journal of the History of Ideas 9 [1948]: 447–471).Google Scholar Charles Partee shows essential differences between the Platonic and Calvinist doctrines of the soul in “The Soul in Plato, Platonism, and Calvin,” Scottish Journal of Theology 22 (1969): 278–295.Google Scholar

61. Inst. 1.3.3, CO 2.38; LCC 20.47.

62. Comm., Z 3.907. 16–29. Because it is genuinely paradigmatic for Zwingli, the pattern of Gen. 3:9 persists throughout man's religious history. Cf. note 22 above.

63. Commentary on Acts 17: 28, CO 48.417: Where Paul quotes the poet Aratus, Calvin says: “tales enim poetarum sententiae non ex alio fonte, quam a natura et communi ratione fluxerunt.” And further on, “… in quo [poetae testimonium] exstabat eius notitiae confessio, quae naturaliter humanis mentibus indita est ac insculpta … quia naturaliter aliquo Dei sensu imbuti sunt homines, ex illo fonte vera principia hauriunt.” Even though the purum semen degenerates, “prima tamen generalis Dei notitia interim in ipsis manet.”

64. Dowey, p. 57. Cf. the language used by Calvin in Commentary on Romans, chapters 1 and 2. Some might at this juncture wish to introduce from later Calvinist theology the notion of “common grace”—a term that does not occur precisely in Calvin, although “general grace” is found in Inst. 2.2.17. I do not find this language helpful in the present context, because it does not clarify so much as confuse what Calvin is saying. It is, he says, a manifestation of God's peculiar grace—i.e., his unselective, overall generosity and mercy and care for man—that despite the fall, he has left human nature intact to the extent that it still has certain capacities, among them the capacity for religion—more specifically, the desire to worship God and the ability to make certain intelligent judgments about what is pleasing to him (e.g., sincerity is more important than sacrifice, Inst. 2.2.24); see especially whole section of Inst. 2.2.12–24. I am not concerned here with the theological debate over whether, according to Calvin, naturally-originating theological ideas or religious sentiments are of any positive value in relation to God; I only wish to determine the extent to which Calvin thinks that religious expression or phenomena (whatever their value or degree of depravity) derive from human nature. Here, my conclusion is that accurate religious expression does derive from human nature (as fallen but graciously spared by the Creator) to a greater extent than one finds it in Zwingli.

65. Dowey, pp. 73 and 81 f. On the sufficiency of nature before the fall, see Commentary on I Corinthians 1: 21.

66. Calvin, , Commentary on Acts 17: 24,Google ScholarCo 48.4 10: “Si quis de religione in genere tractare velit, hoc erit primum caput: esse aliquod numen, cui debetur cultus ab hominibus.” Herbert of Cherbury's first two “common notions” are: “1. Esse supremum aliquod Numen. 2. Supremum istud Numen debere coli.” They appear repeatedly in De veritate, De religione laici, and De religione gentilium, here given as they appear in Güttler, C., Eduard, Lord Herbert von Cherbury (München, 1897), p. 64.Google Scholar Common notions have rootage in classical philosophy similar to that of innate ideas; cf. Horowitz, p. 8.

67. Cf. Dowey, p. 85: natural theology is a “battering ram” not a bridge.