‘Nicknames usually contain an ounce of truth alongside much that is distorted and downright untrue’, writes David Hall. ‘Puritan’ is one such name. It appeared somewhere around 1564 as ‘a new term of abuse’. To understand the roots of Puritanism and how those deemed Puritan came to hold – and then lose – power, we will briefly place Puritanism within a longer history of reform.

Early reformers, like Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, Philip Melanchthon, Martin Bucer and John Calvin did not want to split Christendom. Dividing Christ's body was sinful. They wanted to reform it, to bring it into line with the pure gospel. These reformers were not pioneers blazing through uncharted territory, for the Catholic Church had a long history of internal critique and diversity of thought and practice. The church also had a long history of declaring certain beliefs unorthodox and forcefully policing boundaries. It was unclear, at first, which category these reformers would fit into, and efforts at theological reconciliation lasted for decades.

Reformers sought to remove aspects of Catholic faith and practice that had accumulated over the centuries. This renovation often changed the physical appearance of the religious landscape, from the attire of clergymen to the appearance of churches. It might be helpful to picture the mystical body of Christ – the spiritual church militant – as a physical structure. Reformers as diverse as Martin Luther and the Zwickau Prophets agreed that the building needed renovation, but they disagreed over how quickly the reform should proceed, how thoroughly the house of God needed to be cleansed and, most importantly, who had the authority to decide. At what point would Christianity transition from impure to pure, and what steps were necessary to achieve this goal?

After reforming ideas reached the British Isles in the early 1520s, debates over authority and the extent of reformation occupied generations of scholars, theologians, magistrates and laypersons. British reformers observed foreign coreligionists. This continental gaze was a source of inspiration and conflict. Just as Scripture provided a diversity of voices on church and state, so the continent provided diverging models for purifying these institutions. Through letters, manuscripts and publications, as well as through travel, continental reformers endeavoured to direct reforming energies in the British Isles. If this region were to be purified, which continental model would it follow – or would the Isles blaze out in their own directions?