Hauing therefore before proued the vnlawfulnesse of them, I will here set downe the differēce betweene those Archdeacons that were in times past, and those whiche are nowe, whereby it may appeare they are nothing like but in name.
They were no ministers as appeareth in (*) 1.1 Sozomene, ours are.
What one reason haue you vsed to proue the vnlawfulnesse of them. If you meane such reasons as you haue against Archbyshops, they be fully answered.
Not one word is there in the seuenth booke and nineteenth Chapter of Sozome∣ne to proue that Archdeacons eyther then were not, or now may not be ministers. For all that he speaketh in that chapter is this. And this also is a strange thing in the Church of Alexandria, whiles the Gospells are a reading, the Byshop doth not rise vp, which I haue hard of others. This holy booke a Monke that is an Archdeacon readeth there, in other pla∣ces Deacons: in many Churches the priests only: but in principall feasts Byshops. Howe you can conclude that Archdeacons were not then ministers by any thing here spo∣ken, surely I know not, for if you meane, bycause he saith that in some churches only Priests did reade, you can no more thereof conclude that Archdeacons were then no Priests, than you may that they were no Deacons, or that Byshops be no Priestes, neyther is it necessary that they shoulde be nowe ministers, it is sufficiente if they be Deacons: yet may they be ministers and méete it is that they should so be, and you cannot proue the contrary.