Ecclesiastical Preferment: Canon 33 and Martyn v Hind
by Philip Jones
Canon 33 of 1603, The Titles of such as are to be made Ministers, provided that
‘no person shall be admitted into sacred orders, except he shall …
 exhibit to the Bishop … a presentation of himself to some ecclesiastical preferment then void in that diocese; or shall
 bring to the said Bishop a … certificate that either he is provided of some church within the … diocese … or of some minister’s place vacant …’.
It goes on to warn that
‘if any Bishop shall [ordain] any person … that hath none of these titles … then he [the Bishop] shall keep and maintain him … till he do prefer him to some ecclesiastical living. And if the said Bishop shall refuse to do so, he shall be suspended … from giving of Orders by the space of a year’.
Canon 33 was discussed in the case of Martyn v Hind (1776) 98 English Reports 1174. The case sheds an interesting sidelight on the status of Church of England ministers.
Mr Martyn was a newly ordained curate. He sued his rector (or former rector), Dr Hind, after the latter dismissed him.
When appointing Mr Martyn, the rector had stated that ‘I … promise to allow him a yearly sum of 50 guineas for his maintenance … until he shall be otherwise provided of some ecclesiastical preferment …’. Mr Martyn was referred to in the third person because the statement was addressed to the Bishop, not to him.
Some time after his appointment as curate, Mr Martyn took on the office of ‘parish reader’, an appointment in the gift of the vestry that had nothing to do with the Bishop. (Presumably he needed the extra money.) The rector took the view that Mr Martyn was now ‘otherwise provided of some ecclesiastical preferment’, and that this in turn had the effect of releasing the rector from his promise of payment and entitling him to dismiss Mr Martyn.
When sued for the 50 guineas, the rector tried to argue that he had no liability to Mr Martyn, because the promise had been made only to the Bishop, to satisfy the requirements of Canon 33.
However, the court held that the rector’s statement ‘[was] not a contract with the Bishop to indemnify him: but a certificate and assurance to the Bishop of a matter of fact’, viz that Mr Martyn had a suitable job to go to (p.1177). The instrument was ‘merely a matter of information to the Bishop: the contract [was] with the curate’ (p.1178). As well as complying with the requirements of Canon 33 and the Bishop, the rector’s act of appointment also created a contract between himself and Mr Martyn.
The court held that Canon 33 ‘shows that … it is not barely necessary that [an ordination candidate] should have a maintenance [i.e an income]: but that he should likewise have … some church where he may exercise his ministerial function: for that is the ground upon which the Bishop is entitled to ordain’ (p.1177).
This suggests that the Bishop’s right to ordain a candidate is conditional on the candidate’s possession of a title, an ecclesiastical office. If the candidate lacks a title, that will not invalidate the ordination, but Canon 33 effectively obliges the Bishop to obtain a title for the candidate himself. (An ordained minister could not undertake secular employment.)
The same point also disposed of the rector’s next argument. He claimed that Mr Martyn had never really been his curate at all, because, though ordained, he had not been licensed by the Bishop.
However, the court held that the ordination itself constituted a licence to officiate as curate. Mr Martyn had not been ordained simpliciter. On the contrary, the Bishop had ordained him to the particular curacy. The office of curate was ‘the very foundation and title of the ordination: therefore he [Martyn] is licensed to all intents and purposes’ (p.1178).
Canon 33 was replaced by Canon C5 of the revised Canons. Canon C5 does not repeat the threat of financial liability on a bishop who ordains without title. However, it still requires that an ordination candidate ‘shall first exhibit to the bishop … a certificate that he is provided of some ecclesiastical office … which the bishop shall judge sufficient’.
However, the new regime of ‘common tenure’ suggests that it is now the Bishop’s responsibility to certify the office, not the candidate’s. The Terms of Service Regulations 2009 provide that an ecclesiastical office ‘may be designated as a training post if the office holder is required by the … bishop to undertake initial ministerial education’ (29(3)). Like other officeholders one newly ordained is also entitled to a written statement of particulars of office (including remuneration) from a diocesan officer nominated by the Bishop (3(1)). This may mean that an ordination candidate is ordained to the diocese more than to a particular office.
To return to Martyn v Hind. The court doubted that Mr Martyn really was a parish reader: ‘The term reader has confounded us … [Mr Martyn] is not a reader in any sense of the law. This is nothing more than a parish employing a clergyman … to read prayers, and they call him a reader’ (p.1178).
As the court observed, a reader (or lector) ‘is one of the 5 minor orders of the Roman Church, inferior to the deacon’. It was therefore a lay office: ‘a reader known to the canon law is always put in opposition to a clergyman: they [readers] are always considered laymen’. That was why the court doubted that Mr Martyn could be a reader, because he was an ordained clergyman.
The reader’s status was a matter of contemporary practice, as well as ‘foreign’ canon law. The court noted that parishes would appoint lay readers where clergy were lacking. For example, ‘in the Welch dioceses, where there is no endowment worth the while of a clergyman to accept … many persons officiate as readers ‘in opposition to clergymen”.
Whatever the precise nature of the parochial office bestowed on Mr Martin, it was not an ‘ecclesiastical preferment’. This was because ‘the office [is] such as requires no licence or authority [from the Bishop]. Therefore … it is impossible to consider this as an ecclesiastical preferment’. So the court awarded Mr Martyn his 50 guineas.
The court’s conclusion was therefore that the office of reader could not be an ecclesiastical office because
(1) it was an intrinsically lay office and
(2) it lacked episcopal authority.
Today a reader is still a lay officeholder (1). The revised Canons are clear that only ‘a lay person’ can become a reader (cf Canon E4(1)). An ordained minister is not eligible. However, the office now requires episcopal authority just as much as that of an ordained minister (2). It is no longer a parochial appointment but an episcopal one.
Thus a lay reader must be both (1) admitted to office and (2) licensed to officiate by the Bishop (Canons E5 and E6). The Bishop may not licence a stipendiary reader unless satisfied that ‘adequate provision’ has been made for the reader’s maintenance (E6(4)). A stipendiary reader also holds common tenure on the same terms as stipendiary clergy (Terms of Service Measure 2009, s.1(1)).