"With this Church we deny that we have any disagreement. Nay, rather, as we revere her as our mother, so we desire to remain in her bosom... For you teach that all which has been approved for fifteen hundred years or more, by the uniform consent of the faithful, is, by our headstrong rashness, torn up and destroyed... I will make it palpable to all that you knew... not only that our agreement with antiquity is far closer than yours, but that all we have attempted has been to renew that ancient form of the Church, which, at first sullied and distorted by illiterate men of indifferent character, was afterwards flagitiously mangled and almost destroyed by the Roman Pontiff and his faction" (Reply to the Letter by Cardinal Sadolet).
He goes on to write:
"I will not press you so closely as to call you back to that form which the Apostles instituted, (though in it we have the only model of a true Church, and whoever deviates from it in the smallest degree is in error)... that ancient form of the Church, such as their writings prove it to have been in the age of Chrysostom and Basil, among the Greeks, and of Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustine, among the Latins; after so doing, contemplate the ruins of that Church, as now surviving among yourselves" (ibid).
And,
"That in all these points [viz. being against transubstantiation, indulgences, reverence of icons and saints, confession and penance, etc.], the ancient Church is clearly on our side, and opposes you, not less than we ourselves do" (ibid).
So Calvin believed that he is on the side of the early church and that the Roman Church had wrecked and destroyed the proper continuity of the church.
A few questions and thoughts:
[i] Why think that the early church (whether the church depicted in the NT or the church of the apostolic fathers, or even the church of the later fathers [both East and West] that Calvin cites) is the "only model of a true Church"? Already by the time of Basil and Augustine there seems to be several innovations not explicitly found in Scripture. Moreover, the situation of the church in the NT era was radically different from the situation of the later church having to deal with additional political pressures and persecution (and not to mention when Christianity became the official religion of Rome such that the church was placed in new circumstances and had to deal with further struggles and problems). From being a small, localized religion that met mostly in homes to becoming the foundation of an empire requires a lot! So it is not obvious to me that the early church (whichever one is being cited) is the right paradigm (though I do think continuity with the early church is essential, but I don't think that means the exclusion of all innovations).
[ii] Is the theology of the church of Geneva (or any of the Reformed churches) more in line with the thought of the early church? When Ignatius of Antioch claims that there is no church without the bishop, it's hard to see how this is more compatible with Calvin than with RC. Nevertheless, I do appreciate that Calvin is attempting to stay on the same team as the early church. So we should ask whether Calvin or RC has the better claim to being the proper successors of the early church.
[iii] To say that the early church is on Calvin's side with respect to certain doctrines and practices seems to employ a dubious argument from silence. Certainly the church fathers did not endorse and in some cases never conceived of some of these doctrines and practices of RC. Nevertheless, given new situations and (perhaps) further revelation from the Spirit, it is not clear that we should eschew them simply because there is no mention of them by the early church. Now I don't think any innovation is permissible, but I do think that innovation was inevitable given the kind of growth (in membership as well as influence and power) that the church experienced. Moreover, I think that the innovation must be both compatible with Scripture as well as being a natural outgrowth of the church's already existing dogmas (e.g., I take the three hypostases and one ousia account of the Trinity to be compatible with Scripture [though obviously not explicitly taught there] and an organic development from what the church already believed, which was occasioned by the need to address various other developments that appeared to break from Scripture and the existing tradition [e.g., Arianism]).
