That formidable duo Lake and Questier are back again with another co-authored monograph on post-Reformation English Catholicism. This time they have taken as their subject the Archpriest Controversy of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries in order to demonstrate the dispute's significance beyond the internal history of the English Catholic community. Lake and Questier's study is in two parts. The first is an unapologetically thorough and narrative account of the course of the controversy and is divided into five chapters. The reader can also be assisted through these complex events by a usefully detailed ‘dramatis personae’ and a timeline at the start of the book. Part ii is made up of twelve chapters which take a more thematic and analytical approach. Highlights to be found here are discussions of libel, history and polemic in chapter vi; the dynamics of the post-Reformation public sphere in chapter viii; and considerations of toleration in chapters xiv and xvi. The book ends with discussions of the Bye Plot in an ‘Epilogue’ and a final comment on the significance of the Gunpowder Plot in the conclusion. Taken together, the chapters clearly explain the various ways in which both the appellants and the Jesuits publicised their cases before multiple audiences in print in ways that were both hugely aggressive, but also elaborately self-reflexive. The quarrel therefore elucidates both the pressing theoretical debates of the period, for example on the origin and nature of political authority, and those surrounding tolerance and toleration, as well as more practical issues. The Archpriest Controversy is embedded within the tumult of international politics and the succession crisis, and aspects of the dispute reveal the tensions between religion and politics in England (underlined, for example, in the way in which members of the Elizabethan regime purposefully exacerbated pre-existing divisions within the English Catholic community). Considering the broad-ranging issues that the controversy illuminates, it was surprising to find no bibliography and throughout it is generally up to the reader to make broader connections. For example those ‘merely theoretical’ practitioners of the ‘history of political thought’ are advised that they might have some ‘passing interest’ in the work (p. 135) but it is left up to them to decide what that might be exactly. Scholarly references are sparse throughout, and it was therefore disappointing to see a footnote dedicated to undermining (erroneously) the recent work of Liesbeth Corens (p.19 n. 46), a book which by the authors’ own admission ‘came out too late for us to take it fully into account’. Despite this, All hail to the archpriest will be of interest to many scholars of post-Reformation England, and of the Counter-Reformation more broadly.