The two houses of convocation, which were summoned with the parliament, bore a strong affinity with this assembly, by the different interests that prevailed in the upper and lower. The last, in imitation of the commons, was desirous of branding the preceding reign; and it was with great difficulty that they concurred with the prelates in an address of congratulation to her majesty. Then their former contest was revived. The lower house desired, in an application to the archbishop of Canterbury and his suffragans, that the matters in dispute concerning the manner of synodical proceedings, and the right of the lower house to hold intermediate assemblies, might be taken into consideration and speedily determined. The bishops proposed, that in the intervals of sessions, the lower house might appoint committees to prepare matters; and when business should be brought regularly before them, the archbishop would regulate the prorogations in such a manner, that they should have sufficient time to sit and deliberate on the subject. This offer did not satisfy the lower house, which was emboldened to persist in its demand by a vote of the commons. These, in consequence of an address of thanks from the clergy, touching Mr. Lloyd, son to the bishop of Worcester, whom they ordered to be prosecuted after his privilege as member of the convocation should be expired, had resolved, that they would on all occasions assert the just rights and privileges of the lower house of convocation. The prelates refused to depart from the archbishop’s right of proroguing the whole convocation with consent of his suffragans. The lower house proposed to refer the controversy to the queen’s decision. The bishops declined this expedient, as inconsistent with the episcopal authority, and the presidency of the archbishop. The lower house having incurred the imputation of favouring presbytery, by this opposition to the bishops, entered in their books a declaration, acknowledging the order of bishops as superior to presbyters, and to be a divine apostolical institution. Then they desired the bishops in an address to concur in settling the doctrine of the divine apostolical right of episcopacy, that it might be a standing rule of the church. They likewise presented a petition to the queen, complaining, that in the convocation called in the year 1700, after an interruption of ten years, several questions having arisen concerning the rights and liberties of the lower house, the bishops had refused a verbal conference; and afterwards declined a proposal to submit the dispute to her majesty’s determination; they therefore fled for protection to her majesty, begging she would call the question into her own royal audience. The queen promised to consider their petition, which was supported by the earl of Nottingham; and ordered their council to examine the affair, how it consisted with law and custom. Whether their report was unfavourable to the lower house, or the queen was unwilling to encourage the division, no other answer was made to their address. The archbishop replied to their request presented to the upper house, concerning the divine right of presbytery, that the preface to the form of ordination contained a declaration of three orders of ministers from the times of the apostles; namely, bishops, priests, and deacons, to which they had subscribed; but he and his brethren conceived, that without a royal license, they had not authority to attempt, enact, promulge, or execute any canon, which should concern either doctrine or discipline. The lower house answered this declaration in very petulant terms; and the dispute subsisted when the parliament was prorogued. But these contests produced divisions through the whole body of the clergy, who ranged themselves in different factions, distinguished by the names of high-church and low-church. The first consisted of ecclesiastical tories; the other included those who professed revolution principles, and recommended moderation towards the dissenters. The high-church party reproached the other as time-servers, and presbyterians in disguise; and were in their turn stigmatized as the friends and abettors of tyranny and persecution. At present, however, the tories both in church and state triumphed in the favour of their sovereign. The right of parliaments, the memory of the late king, and even the act limiting the succession of the house of Hanover, became the subjects of ridicule. The queen was flattered as possessor of the prerogatives of the ancient monarchy; the history written by her grandfather, the earl of Clarendon, was now for the first time published, to inculcate the principles of obedience, and inspire the people with an abhorrence of opposition to an anointed sovereign. Her majesty’s hereditary right was deduced from Edward the Confessor, and as heir of his pretended sanctity and virtue, she was persuaded to touch persons afflicted with the king’s evil, according to the office inserted in the Liturgy for this occasion.