ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 



as Presbyterian. Farnham was Cavalier and High Church, as became 

 the Bishop of Winchester's pocket borough. In more remote places all 

 religious changes seem to have been very easily accepted. The malignant 

 clergy were in several cases, as at Godalming, Charlwood, Farnham, 

 Guildford, Barnes, Worplesdon, presented by bishops, capitular bodies, or 

 colleges. But it was not enough for the dominant Parliament, which 

 was ruling England, to remove the Royalist clergy. Some ecclesiastical 

 organization was called for by the Puritan clergy, and the naked Erasti- 

 anism of Church government by the Parliament alone was not approved 

 even by all the laity. On 5 March, 1646, the Commons passed an ordi- 

 nance for the establishment of a parochial Presbyterian system, and the 

 Lords concurred on 14 March. But this system upon which the Parlia- 

 ment had been labouring at intervals for some time was one imposed 

 from above, not one which had naturally grown up in any county, at 

 least in a complete form. The Parliament divided counties into classes 

 of certain geographical extent, and nominated ministers and lay elders in 

 each classis. These were to form an ad interim body who were to preside 

 over the process of parochial election of elders, to certify the fitness of 

 those named, and then to give place to the naturally formed classis of 

 delegates from the parishes. It does not therefore follow that because 

 we have a complete classical organization established for Surrey by an 

 ordinance of Parliament, we are also to assume that the real Presbyterian 

 system actually existed in its complete form in the county.' Yet it is 

 very possible that such was the case. Southwark with Lambeth, Ber- 

 mondsey, Newington and Rotherhithe formed the tenth of the twelve 

 classical divisions of London, where the system certainly was really 

 organized. Another of the classical divisions of Surrey, that of Reigate, 

 can be shown to have existed. The whole county was so much under 

 the influence of London that it would not be surprising if it was all 

 similarly organized. Yet we cannot positively afl5rm this to be the case. 

 The Sectaries, who not without reason considered the Presbyterian system 

 of discipline to be as dangerous and oppressive as the old ecclesiastical 

 rule so far as they were concerned, were fairly strong in Surrey, and we 

 may be pretty sure that their system existed side by side with any more 

 comprehensive organization. 



The classical scheme for Surrey was sanctioned on i6 February, 

 1648, by the Committee of both Houses appointed ad hoc? 



The first classis included Farnham, Elsted, Seale, Wanborough, 

 Frensham, Ash, Frimley, Pirbright, Windlesham, Shalford, Bramley, 

 Hascombe, Alfold, Dunsfold, Haslemere, Chiddingfold, Witley, Thursley, 

 Hambledon, Godalming, Peperharow, Puttenham, Compton. 



The second classis included Dorking, Capel, Ockley, Abinger, 

 Wotton, Shiere, Ewhurst, Cranleigh, Albury, Wonersh, St. Martha's 

 (Marter the hill originally), Mickleham, EfRngham, Great Bookham, 



1 See Shaw, History of the Church of England during the Civil Wars and under the Commonwealih, ii. 22. 

 Dr. Shaw has so fully investigated all the available evidence that it is only possible to follow him. 



2 Printed by A.M., London, 1648, Brit. Mus. E. AfL. 



35 



