Preface: This article was written in collaboration with ChatGPT.

In 1517, Martin Luther published the Ninety-Five Theses, openly challenging the authority of the Catholic Church and igniting the Protestant Reformation. Protestantism soon emerged, emphasizing justification by faith alone and the supremacy of Scripture, and rejecting the Church’s role as a necessary intermediary in salvation. England followed quickly, but its reform took a distinctive path: it was “politics first, theology half-done.” In 1534, Henry VIII broke with Rome and established the Church of England. In practice, however, this new church adopted some Protestant theology while retaining Catholic structures—its rituals, episcopal hierarchy, and much of its institutional framework remained largely intact.

Before turning to the Puritans, it is necessary to clarify the relationship among Christianity, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. Christianity is an umbrella term encompassing all religious traditions that confess Jesus as the Christ, affirm his crucifixion and resurrection, and treat the Bible as the core sacred text. It is not a single church, but a family of traditions centered on the same figure. Over time, different institutional forms and sources of authority developed around Jesus, giving rise to Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. The fundamental division has never been about belief in Jesus, but about who has the authority to interpret faith and govern the church.

Both Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy understand themselves as heirs to early Christian orthodoxy, emphasizing sacramental life, tradition, and a structured clergy. Their decisive break lies in authority. Catholicism is centered on Rome and recognizes the pope as the supreme arbiter of the universal church, viewing church tradition and councils as integral components of religious authority. Eastern Orthodoxy rejects papal supremacy and instead upholds a communion of self-governing local churches that collectively preserve tradition. Though their doctrines are largely similar, they remain irreconcilably divided over the question of final authority.

Protestantism emerged as a direct rejection of the shared premise of Catholicism and Orthodoxy that the church itself constitutes religious authority. During the sixteenth-century Reformation, Protestant thinkers—most prominently Martin Luther—advanced the principles of sola scriptura and justification by faith alone, arguing that salvation does not depend on ecclesiastical rites or clerical mediation but on the believer’s personal relationship with God. These principles undermined papal authority, weakened the salvific role of the sacraments, and removed the monopoly of biblical interpretation from ecclesiastical institutions. As a result, Protestantism developed not as a single church but as a constellation of denominations united by these shared convictions.

The fundamental difference between Catholicism and Protestantism lies not in ritual style but in the source of authority. Catholicism holds that Scripture, church tradition, and ecclesiastical authority together constitute truth, with the church functioning as a mediating system of salvation. Protestantism asserts that Scripture alone has ultimate authority and that the church is merely the gathering of believers. The former emphasizes hierarchy, ritual, and continuity; the latter emphasizes individual conscience, preaching, and the rejection of spiritual elites. These divergent assumptions produce profoundly different attitudes toward politics, social order, and personal responsibility.

The Church of England is often described as “theologically half-Protestant” precisely because it conceded ground to Protestant theology while preserving the institutional skeleton of Catholicism. England’s break with Rome was driven primarily by political necessity: papal authority was rejected, vernacular worship introduced, and certain Protestant doctrines adopted. Yet the episcopal system, diocesan structure, state control over church appointments, and much traditional liturgy and prayer were retained. This deliberate compromise served the needs of governance, but to the Puritans it represented a fundamental betrayal—authority had merely shifted from the church to the state, rather than being returned wholly to Scripture and faith.

The intellectual foundation of Puritanism derived not from Luther but from John Calvin. Calvin was born in France and initially trained as a lawyer. His father, who worked within ecclesiastical administration, envisioned a career for him along a church-law pathway and directed him first toward humanist studies and then toward legal training. Calvin studied in Paris and Orléans, acquiring rigorous skills in Roman law, textual interpretation, logical argumentation, and institutional design. His trajectory changed decisively after November 1, 1533, with an inaugural address delivered at the Faculty of Theology of the University of Paris, known as the Sorbonne.

The Sorbonne was the theological faculty of the University of Paris, which since the thirteenth century had stood as one of the most authoritative centers of Catholic learning in Western Europe. Founded by Robert de Sorbon to educate poor theology students, it evolved into the institution responsible for defining theological orthodoxy. By the time of the Reformation, “the opinion of the Sorbonne” was virtually synonymous with orthodox Catholic doctrine, carrying weight not only in France but across Latin Christendom.

The Sorbonne did more than teach theology; it determined what counted as orthodoxy and what constituted heresy. It possessed the authority to censor books, evaluate sermons, and provide theological justification for royal policy. French kings depended on the Sorbonne’s endorsement in religious matters, while the Sorbonne relied on royal power to enforce repression of heresy. This mutual dependence placed the Sorbonne at the heart of the church–state alliance.

It was in this context that Nicolas Cop’s inaugural address asserted that the foundation of Christian salvation lay not in external institutions but in inner faith. True Christianity, the address argued, did not consist in the accumulation of rituals or good works, but in genuine understanding and acceptance of the Gospel. Though moderate in tone, this claim struck directly at the core Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone. In Catholic theology, faith operates through the church, the sacraments, and good works; in Protestant theology, faith itself suffices for salvation.

More provocatively, the address minimized—if not bypassed—the mediating role of the church. It avoided appeals to ecclesiastical tradition, papal authority, or clerical hierarchy, and instead repeatedly cited Scripture, implying that the Bible alone was sufficient to guide believers to truth. Formally, the speech was delivered in Latin and from a university podium; substantively, it approached the principle of sola scriptura. For the Sorbonne, this was tantamount to denying the very rationale for its existence.

The address also bore the marks of humanist and reformist convergence. It criticized sterile scholastic theology and mocked academic debates obsessed with form while neglecting the substance of Christ’s message. Such critiques were familiar within Renaissance humanism, but in the political climate of 1530s France they closely overlapped with Lutheran and reformist positions. Once academic criticism turned against ecclesiastical authority itself, it ceased to be merely academic.

Within the University of Paris—an emblem of Catholic orthodoxy—the rector’s inaugural address was understood as a public declaration of institutional stance. Effectively, it signaled that the university’s highest officeholder harbored fundamental doubts about the Catholic system of salvation. As a result, the speech required no line-by-line refutation to be condemned as heretical in tendency. What followed was not theological debate but political reaction. Cop was swiftly investigated and forced into exile, and younger scholars associated with his intellectual circle, including John Calvin, became potential targets of repression.

The Sorbonne concluded that a network of reformist ideas had taken root within the university. What followed was not open discussion but investigation, accusation, and the compilation of names. The Sorbonne initiated heresy proceedings, and royal authority intervened. Calvin’s vulnerability lay in his position: he was not an obscure student, but an elite-trained intellectual closely connected to Cop and regarded as a valuable thinker within reformist circles. Scholars generally agree that he at least contributed to the conception or drafting of the address. In that context, even the absence of documentary proof was sufficient.

France chose repression over reform—and Calvin was driven into becoming a theologian.