¹ For the publications surrounding the conference, see Featley, Daniel, The Fisher Catched in His Owne Net (London, 1623)Google Scholar; idem, The Romish Fisher Caught and Held in His Owne Net (London, 1624); idem, An Appendix to Fisher's Net (London, 1624); [John Percy], A. C., An Answer to a Pamphlet Intitled: The Fisher Catched in His Owne Net (Saint-Omer, 1623)Google Scholar; idem, A Reply to D. White and D. Featley (Saint-Omer, 1625); [John Sweet], L. D., A Defense of the Appendix (Saint-Omer, 1624)Google Scholar; Weston, Edward, The Repaire of Honour, Falsely Impeached by Featlye a Minister (Bruges [imprint false, printed at Saint-Omer], 1624)Google Scholar; Rogers, Henry, An Answer to Mr. Fisher the Iesuite, His Five Propositions Concerning Luther (London, 1623)Google Scholar. See also Milward, Peter, Religious Controversies of the Jacobean Age: A Survey of Printed Sources (London, 1978), 220Google Scholar–4; Joshua Rodda, ‘“Dayes of Gall and Wormwood”: Public Religious Disputation in England, 1558–1626’ (PhD thesis, University of Nottingham, 2012), 222–36, published as Public Religious Disputation in England, 1558–1626 (Farnham, 2014).

² Buggs probably encountered Percy because his London residence was in ‘Drurie lane’, which Questier notes was a notorious hotbed of Catholicism: Featley, The Fisher Catched, sig. A2^r; Questier, Michael, Catholicism and Community in Early Modern England: Politics, Aristocratic Patronage and Religion, c.1550–1640 (Cambridge, 2006), 396CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ An account of this conference is in London, LPL, MS 1372, ‘King James I meets John Percy, S. J. (25 May, 1622)’, fols 58^v–61^v, which Timothy Wadkins transcribed and published: ‘King James I meets John Percy, S. J. (25 May, 1622): An unpublished Manuscript from the Religious Controversies surrounding the Countess of Buckingham's Conversion’, Recusant History 19 (1988), 146–54. For the various other accounts of this conference, see White, Francis, A Replie to Jesuit Fishers Answer (London, 1624)Google Scholar; Baillie, Robert, An Answere to Mr. Fishers Relation of a Third Conference Between a Certaine B. (as he stiles him) and Himselfe (London, 1624)Google Scholar; Laud, William, A Relation of the Conference Betweene William Lawd . . . and Mr. Fisher the Jesuite by the Command of King James (London, 1639)Google Scholar; [John Percy], A. C., True Relations of Sundry Conferences had Between Certaine Protestant Doctours and a Iesuite Called M. Fisher (Saint-Omer, 1626)Google Scholar; [John Fisher], I. F., The Answere Unto the Nine Points of Controversy, Proposed by Our Late Soueraygne (Saint-Omer, 1625)Google Scholar; A. C., Reply to White and Featley. See also Wadkins, Timothy, ‘The Percy-“Fisher” Controversies and the Ecclesiastical Politics of Jacobean Anti-Catholicism, 1622–1625’, ChH 57 (1988), 153–69Google Scholar; idem, ‘Theological and Religious Culture in Early Stuart England: The Percy/Fisher Controversies, 1605–41’ (PhD thesis, Graduate Theological Union, 1988), 25–70; Rodda, ‘Dayes of Gall and Wormwood', 198–212. According to Milward, Laud was actually the author of the Baillie account: Religious Controversies, 224.

⁴ Wadkins notes that after her formal conversion the countess was ‘banished from court’ and ‘Percy continued to live on parole in her home for the next ten years’: ‘The Percy-“Fisher” Controversies’, 158. See also Questier, Catholicism and Community, 395; Marotti, Arthur, Religious Ideology and Cultural Fantasy: Catholic and Anti-Catholic Discourse in Early Modern England (Notre Dame, IN, 2005), 54Google Scholar; Hibbard, Caroline, Charles I and the Popish Plot (Chapel Hill, NC, 1983), 66Google Scholar; ODNB, s.n. ‘Villiers, Mary (c.1570–1632)’.

⁵ ODNB, s.n. ‘Percy, John [alias Fisher] (1559–1642)’. On Percy's evangelistic activity in prisons, see Peter Lake with Questier, Michael, Antichrist's Lewd Hat: Protestants, Papists and Players in Post-Reformation England (New Haven, CT, 2002), 206Google Scholar; Wadkins, ‘The Percy-“Fisher” Controversies’, 155. On the increased tolerance of English Catholics in the early 1620s, see Questier, Catholicism and Community, 394–5.

⁶ See Questier, Michael, ‘Introduction’ to idem, ed., Stuart Dynastic Policy and Religious Politics 1621–1625, Camden 5th ser. 34 (Cambridge, 2009), 1–130Google Scholar, at 6; Cogswell, Thomas, The Blessed Revolution: English Politics and the Coming of War, 1621–1624 (Cambridge, 1989), 13Google Scholar, 15–16; idem, ‘England and the Spanish Match’, in Richard Cust and Ann Hughes, eds, Conflict in Early Stuart England: Studies in Religion and Politics 1603–1642 (London, 1989), 107–33, at 111. See also Patterson, W. B., King James VI and I and the Reunion of Christendom (Cambridge, 1997), 315Google Scholar.

⁷ For Featley's first conference, see Featley, Daniel, Transubstantiation Exploded (London, 1638Google Scholar), sigs B8^v–B11^v; for his second, with ‘D. Stevens’ and subsequently Christopher Bagshaw, see ibid., sigs L7^r–N5^v; for his final debate, against Richard Smith, see Featley, Daniel, The Summe and Substance of a Disputation Between M. Dan. Featley, Opponent, and D. Smith . . . at Paris. Sept. 4. 1612 (London, 1630)Google Scholar, appended to idem, The Grand Sacrilege of the Church of Rome (London, 1630), sigs Rr3^r–Vv3^v; idem, Transubstantiation Exploded; Waferer, Myrth, An Apologie for Daniel Featley (London, 1634)Google Scholar, especially sigs O2^r–^v. For Catholic replies, see [Edmund Lechmere], S. E., The Conference Mentioned by Doctour Featly in the End of His Sacrilege (Douai, 1632)Google Scholar, especially sigs. A2^r–^v; [John Lechmere], L. I., The Relection of a Conference Touching the Reall Presence (Douai, 1635)Google Scholar, especially sigs Oo3^r–^v. See also Adlington, Hugh, ‘Chaplains to Embassies: Daniel Featley, anti-Catholic Controversialist Abroad’, in idem, Lockwood, Tom and Wright, Gillian, eds, Chaplains in Early Modern England: Patronage, Literature and Religion (Manchester, 2013), 83–102Google Scholar.

⁸ Wadkins, ‘The Percy-“Fisher” Controversies’, 164.

⁹ Featley, Romish Fisher Caught, sig. *3^r.

¹⁰ Questier, Michael, Conversion, Politics and Religion in England, 1580–1625 (Cambridge, 1996), 39Google Scholar.

¹¹ Space precludes examination of how the Catholic account made its way into print, or of the credibility of that account.

¹² Milton, Anthony, Catholic and Reformed: The Roman and Protestant Churches in English Protestant Thought, 1600–1640 (Cambridge, 1995), 270CrossRefGoogle Scholar–1.

¹³ Questier, Conversion, Politics and Religion, 12, 9.

¹⁴ Ibid. 13–14.

¹⁵ Bray, Gerald, ed., The Anglican Canons 1529–1947, CERS 6 (Woodbridge, 1998), 357Google Scholar; cf. Montagu, Richard, ‘Concerning Recusancie of Communion with the Church of England’, ed. Milton, Anthony and Walsham, Alexandra, in Taylor, Stephen, ed., From Cranmer to Davidson: A Church of England Miscellany, CERS 7 (Woodbridge, 1999), 69–101Google Scholar, at 73.

¹⁶ Featley, Appendix to Fisher's Net, sig. H3*^r.

¹⁷ Ibid., sig. Dd3^v.

¹⁸ Featley could also employ a more ambiguous form of anti-Catholicism that incorporated more inclusive language, yet was still far removed from the moderate positions of White and Laud: see ibid., sigs D3^v, Ff1^v, Gg3^v, L3*^r, Ii4^v–Kk1^r; Milton, Anthony, ‘A Qualified Intolerance: The Limits and Ambiguities of Early Stuart Anti-Catholicism’, in Marotti, Arthur F., ed., Catholicism and Anti-Catholicism in Early Modern English Texts (New York, 1999), 85–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 86–7, 89, 90, 110; idem, Catholic and Reformed, 176–9; Montagu, ‘Concerning Recusancie’, ed. Walsham and Milton, 75–6.

¹⁹ Featley, Fisher Catched, sigs B2^r–^v. For his critique of the pope's ability to canonize the saints, see idem, Appendix to the Fisher's Net, sig. L4*^v; for other critiques, see ibid., sig. Ii3^r.

²⁰ Ibid., sigs Gg3^v–Hh2^v, N4*4^r; cf. Milton, Anthony, ‘The Church of England, Rome, and the True Church: The Demise of a Jacobean Consensus’, in Fincham, Kenneth, ed., The Early Stuart Church, 1603–1642 (Basingstoke, 1993), 187–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 194; idem, Catholic and Reformed.

²¹ A. C., Answer to a Pamphlet, sig. G4^v; Percy, Reply to White and Featley, sigs B1^v, L2^r. The Catholic works Percy lists as including catalogues are Percy, John, A Reply Made Unto Mr. Anthony Wotton and Mr. Iohn White Ministers (Saint-Omer, 1612)Google Scholar, sigs Ii3^r–Kk3^v; S. N., Appendix to the Antidote (Saint-Omer, 1621). For a list of other Protestant authors who responded in print to Percy, see Wadkins, ‘The Percy-“Fisher” Controversies’, 166.

²² Featley, Appendix to the Fisher's Net, sigs S1*^v, S3*^r.

²³ Ibid., sig. S2*^v.

²⁴ Ibid., sig. A4^v; cf. idem, Fisher Catched, sigs A4^v–B1^r. Featley also published a complete catalogue that he supposedly received from his ‘friend' at Oxford: Appendix to the Fisher's Net, sigs F4^r–G1^v.

²⁵ For these two groups, see Milton, Catholic and Reformed, 281–95.

²⁶ Featley, An Appendix to Fisher's Net, sigs K3*^r–^v. Nonetheless, it is important to remember that Featley was not wholly ‘Foxeian’ since in his catalogues he drew on clerics whom many Foxeians would have opposed. Also, the non-Foxeian, Simon Birckbek, notes in his preface ‘to the reader’ that Featley ‘gave mee the right hand of Fellowship, encouraging me to go on with my Catalogue’: Simon Birckbek, The Protestants Evidence (London, 1635), ‘To the Reader’; see Milton, Catholic and Reformed, 284–5.

²⁷ Featley, Romish Fisher Caught, sig. F2^v; idem, Appendix to Fisher's Net, sig. V2*^v.

²⁸ Featley, Fisher Catched, sig. B4^r.

²⁹ Ibid., sigs D1^r–D2^r.

³⁰ For the 1620 and 1621 proclamations, see J. F. Larkin and P. L. Hughes, eds, Stuart Royal Proclamations, 2 vols (Oxford, 1973), 1: 495–6, 519–21. The 4 August 1622 ‘directions on preaching’ are printed in Fuller, Thomas, The Church History of Britain (London, 1655)Google Scholar, sigs Oooo3^r–^v; cf. Cogswell, Blessed Revolution, 20, 32.

³¹ Cogswell, Blessed Revolution, 34. For Hall's imprisonment, see ibid. 44–5; for other imprisonments, see Walsham, Alexandra, ‘“The Fatall Vesper”: Providentialism and Anti-Popery in Late Jacobean London’, P&P 144 (1994), 36–87Google Scholar, at 80.

³² Cogswell, Blessed Revolution, 51.

³³ Wadkins, ‘The Percy-“Fisher” Controversies’, 164; ODNB, s.n. ‘Percy, John [alias Fisher]’; Featley, Appendix to the Fisher's Net, sig. Bb2^v; cf. L. D., Defense of the Appendix, sig. B4^r.

³⁴ A. C., Answer to a Pamphlet, sig. B4^v.

³⁵ Featley, Fisher Catched, sig. A3^v. For Featley's reply to this accusation, see Appendix to the Fisher's Net, sig. Bb2^v.

³⁶ Featley, Romish Fisher Caught, sig. *3^r.

³⁷ Ibid., sig. *3^v. On the plausibility of Featley's claim that the account was published without his knowledge, see Hunt, Arnold, The Art of Hearing: English Preachers and their Audiences, 1590–1640 (Cambridge, 2010), 138Google Scholar–41.

³⁸ For the list of works Featley licensed, see Arber, Edward, ed., A Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London, 1554–1640, 5 vols (London, 1875–94)Google Scholar, 3: 283b – 4: 185 (21 July 1617 – 1 October 1629). On Featley's licensing activities, see Milton, Anthony, ‘Licensing, Censorship, and Religious Orthodoxy in Early Stuart England’, HistJ 41 (1998), 625Google Scholar–51; Hunt, Arnold, ‘Licensing and Religious Censorship in Early Modern England’, in Hadfield, Andrew, ed., Literature and Censorship in Renaissance England (Basingstoke, 2001), 127Google Scholar–46; Lake, Peter, The Boxmaker's Revenge: ‘Orthodoxy’, ‘Heterodoxy’ and the Politics of the Parish in Early Stuart London (Stanford, CA, 2001)Google Scholar; Clegg, Cyndia Susan, Press Censorship in Jacobean England (Cambridge, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; eadem, Press Censorship in Caroline England (Cambridge, 2008); Towers, S. Mutchow, Control of Religious Printing in Early Stuart England (Woodbridge, 2003)Google Scholar; Lambert, Sheila, ‘Richard Montagu, Arminianism and Censorship’, P&P 124 (1989), 36–68Google Scholar.

³⁹ For the manuscript account, see Oxford, Bodl., Rawlinson MS D.817, ‘The occasion and office of the late conference had betweene Dr White and Dr Ffeatley, w[i]th Mr Ffisher and Mr Sweete Jesuits’, fols 156^r–169^v. This hand looks similar to a letter attributed to Featley in Rawlinson MS D.47, fols 20^v–22^r.

⁴⁰ Featley, Romish Fisher Caught, sig. *3^r.

⁴¹ Featley, Fisher Catched, sig. D2^v.

⁴² Featley, Romish Fisher Caught, sig. ¶4^v.

⁴³ Cogswell, ‘England and the Spanish Match’, 115.

⁴⁴ For Featley's unfinished treatise and letter to the countess, see Rawlinson MS D.47, fols 1^r–4^v, 15^r. On the appointment of Laud and White instead of Featley, and the shifts at court, see Wadkins, ‘The Percy-“Fisher” Controversies’, 164; Milton, Catholic and Reformed.

⁴⁵ Lake, Peter, ‘Anti-Popery and the Structure of Prejudice’, in Cust and Hughes, eds, Conflict in Early Stuart England, 72–106Google Scholar, at 97.

⁴⁶ Milton, ‘Qualified Intolerance’, 110.

⁴⁷ Featley, Fisher Catched, sig. D2^v.

⁴⁸ Featley, Appendix to the Fisher's Net, sig. Bb4^v. For Percy's scepticism, see A. C., Answer to a Pamphlet, sig. F4^r. For Featley's response to Percy's doubts, see Featley, Appendix to the Fisher's Net, sigs Oo1^v–Oo2^v. Featley published as a part of his Appendix to the Fisher's Net a short treatise by Lynde, which defended Featley: ibid., sig. Bb4^v.