OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 2/Canons/Canon XXVIII

Canon XXVIII.
Since we understand that in several churches grapes are brought to the altar, according to a custom which has long prevailed, and the ministers joined this with the unbloody sacrifice of the oblation, and distributed both to the people at the same time, we decree that no priest shall do this for the future, but shall administer the oblation alone to the people for the quickening of their souls and for the remission of their sins.  But with regard to the offering of grapes as first fruits, the priests may bless them apart [from the offering of the oblation] and distribute them to such as seek them as an act of thanksgiving to him who is the Giver of the fruits by which our bodies are increased and fed according to his divine decree. And if any cleric shall violate this decree let him be deposed.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XXVIII.
Grapes are by some joined with the unbloody sacrifice. It is hereby decreed that no one shall for the future dare to do this.
Van Espen.
Similar blessings of fruit, and particularly of grapes, are found in more recent rituals as well as in the ancient Greek Euchologions and the Latin Rituales. In the Sacramentary of St. Gregory will be found a benediction of grapes on the feast of St. Sixtus.
Cardinal Bona says (De Rob. Liturg., Lib. II., cap. xiv.), that immediately before the words Semper bona creas, sanctificas, etc., if new fruits or any other things adapted to human use were to be blessed, they were wont in former times to be placed before the altar, and there to be blessed by the priest; and when the benediction was ended with the accustomed words “Through Christ our Lord,” there was added the following prayer:  “Perquem hæc omnia, etc.,” which words are not so much to be referred to the body and blood of Christ, as to the things to be blessed, which God continually creates by renewing, and we ask that they may be sanctified by his benediction to our use.
But in after ages when the fervour of the faithful had grown cold, that the mass might not be too long, they were separated and yet the prayer remained which, as said to-day over the consecrated species alone, can hardly be understood.
This canon is found in a shortened form in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Pars. III. De Consecrat., Dist. II., can. vj.
Compare Canon of the Apostles number iv.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 2/Canons/Canon XXXIII

Canon XXXIII.
Since we know that, in the region of the Armenians, only those are appointed to the clerical orders who are of priestly descent (following in this Jewish customs); and some of those who are even untonsured are appointed to succeed cantors and readers of the divine law, we decree that henceforth it shall not be lawful for those who wish to bring any one into the clergy, to pay regard to the descent of him who is to be ordained; but let them examine whether they are worthy (according to the decrees set forth in the holy canons) to be placed on the list of the clergy, so that they may be ecclesiastically promoted, whether they are of priestly descent or not; moreover, let them not permit any one at all to read in the ambo, according to the order of those enrolled in the clergy, unless such an one have received the priestly tonsure and the canonical benediction of his own pastor; but if any one shall have been observed to act contrary to these directions, let him be cut off.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XXXIII.
Whoever is worthy of the priesthood should be ordained whether he is sprung of a priestly line or no. And he that has been blessed untonsured shall not read the Holy Scriptures at the ambo.
Van Espen.
Here not obscurely does the canon join the clerical tonsure received from the bishop with the office of Reader, so much so that he that has been tonsured by the bishop is thought to have received at the same time the tonsure and the order of lector.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 2/Canons/Canon XXXVI

Canon XXXVI.
Renewing the enactments by the 150 Fathers assembled at the God-protected and imperial city, and those of the 630 who met at Chalcedon; we decree that the see of Constantinople shall have equal privileges with the see of Old Rome, and shall be highly regarded in ecclesiastical matters as that is, and shall be second after it. After Constantinople shall be ranked the See of Alexandria, then that of Antioch, and afterwards the See of Jerusalem.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XXXVI.
Let the throne of Constantinople be next after that of Rome, and enjoy equal privileges. After it Alexandria, then Antioch, and then Jerusalem.
Balsamon.
The Fathers here speak of the Second and Third canons of the Second Synod [i.e. I. Constantinople] and of canon xxviij. of the Fourth Synod [i.e. Chalcedon]. And read what we have said on these canons.
Aristenus.
We have explained the third canon of the Synod of Constantinople and the twenty-eighth canon of the Synod of Chalcedon as meaning, when asserting that the bishop of Constantinople should enjoy equal privileges after the Roman bishop, that he should be placed second from the Roman in point of time. So here too this preposition “after” denotes time but not honour. For after many years this throne of Constantinople obtained equal privileges with the Roman Church; because it was honoured by the presence of the Emperor and of the Senate.
On this opinion of Aristenus’s the reader is referred to the notes on Canon iij. of I. Constantinople.
Justinian.
(Novella CXXXI., Cap. ij.)
We command that according to the definitions of the Four Councils the most holy Pope of Old Rome shall be first of all the priests. But the most blessed Archbishop of Constantinople, which is New Rome, shall have the second place after the Holy Apostolic See of Old Rome.
This canon, in a mutilated form, is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum, Pars I., Dist. XXII., c. vj.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 2/Canons/Canon XXXIX

Canon XXXIX.
Since our brother and fellow-worker, John, bishop of the island of Cyprus, together with his people in the province of the Hellespont, both on account of barbarian incursions, and that they may be freed from servitude of the heathen, and may be subject alone to the sceptres of most Christian rule, have emigrated from the said island, by the providence of the philanthropic God, and the labour of our Christ-loving and pious Empress; we determine that the privileges which were conceded by the divine fathers who first at Ephesus assembled, are to be preserved without any innovations, viz.: that new Justinianopolis shall have the rights of Constantinople and whoever is constituted the pious and most religious bishop thereof shall take precedence of all the bishops of the province of the Hellespont, and be elected [?] by his own bishops according to ancient custom. For the customs which obtain in each church our divine Fathers also took pains should be maintained, the existing bishop of the city of Cyzicus being subject to the metropolitan of the aforesaid Justinianopolis, for the imitation of all the rest of the bishops who are under the aforesaid beloved of God metropolitan John, by whom, as custom demands, even the bishop of the very city of Cyzicus shall be ordained.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XXXIX.
The new Justinianopolis shall have the rights of Constantinople, and its prelate shall rule over all the bishops of the Hellespont to whom he has gone, and he shall be ordained by his own bishop: as the fathers of Ephesus decreed.
Hefele.
Hitherto the bishop of Cyzicus was metropolitan of the province of the Hellespont. Now he too is to be subject to the bishop of New-Justinianopolis. What, however, is meant by “the right of Constantinople”? It was impossible that the Synod should place the bishop of Justinianopolis in equal dignity with the patriarch of Constantinople. But they probably meant to say: “The rights which the bishop of Constantinople has hitherto exercised over the province of the Hellespont, as chief metropolitan, fall now to the bishop of New-Justinianopolis.” Or perhaps we should read, instead of Constantinople Κωνσταντινέων πόλεως, as the Amerbachian ms. has it, and translate: “The same rights which Constantia (the metropolis of Cyprus) possessed, New Justinianopolis shall henceforth have.” The latter is the more probable.
Van Espen.
To understand this canon it must be remembered that the Metropolis of Cyprus, which was formerly called Constantia, when restored by the Emperor Justinian was called by his name, New Justinianopolis.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 2/Canons/Canon XXXIV

Canon XXXIV.
But in future, since the priestly canon openly sets this forth, that the crime of conspiracy or secret society is forbidden by external laws, but much more ought it to be prohibited in the Church; we also hasten to observe that if any clerics or monks are found either conspiring or entering secret societies, or devising anything against bishops or clergymen, they shall be altogether deprived of their rank.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XXXIV.
If clerics or monks enter into conspiracies or fraternities, or plots against the bishop or their fellow clerics, they shall be cast out of their grade.
This is but a renewal of Canon xviij. of Chalcedon, which see with the notes.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Notes and table/Note 2

On Bk. III. chap. 3, § 6 (note 22, continued).
Upon the last chapter of Romans and its relation to the remainder of the epistle, see especially Farrar’s Life and Work of St. Paul, p. 450 sq., Weiss’ Einleitung in das N. T. p. 245 sq., Pfleiderer’s Urchristenthum, p. 145 , Renan’s Saint Paul, p. 461 sq. (maintaining that an editor has combined four copies of the one encyclical letter of Paul, addressed severally to as many different churches), Lightfoot’s Commentary on Philippians, p. 172 sq., and Schaff, Ch. History, I. p. 765.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Notes and table/Note 19

On Bk. VII. chap. 25, § 11.
For in the reputed second or third Epistle of John, read in the extant second and third Epistles of John (ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ φερομένῃ ᾽Ιω€ννου καὶ τρίτῃ).
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Notes and table/Note 20

On Bk. VII. chap. 26, § 1 (note 4, continued).
On Dionysius’ attitude toward Sabellianism and the occasion of the Apology (žλεγχος καὶ ἀπολογία) in four books, which he addressed to Dionysius of Rome, see Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1. This work is no longer extant, but brief fragments of it have been preserved by Athanasius (in his De Sent. Dionysii) and by Basil ( in his De Spir. Sancto). English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VI. p. 92 sq. The longer work was preceded by a shorter one, now lost, to which reference is made in one of the fragments of the longer work. We do not know the exact date of the work, but may assign it with considerable probability to the earlier part of the episcopate of Dionysius of Rome; that is, soon after 259. Upon this work and upon Dionysius’ attitude toward Sabellianism, see especially Dittrich, Dionysius der Grosse, p. 91. sq.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Notes and table/Note 22

On Bk. X. chap. 8, § 4 (note I, a).
After Constantine’s victory over Maxentius, his half-sister Constantia, daughter of Constantius Chlorus by his second wife, Theodora, was married to Licinius, and thus the alliance of the two emperors was cemented by family ties. Constantius Chlorus was a grandson of Crispus, brother of the Emperor Claudius II., and hence could claim to be, in a sense, of imperial extraction; a fact which gave him a dignity beyond that of his colleagues, who were all of comparatively low birth. Constantine himself and his panegyrists always made much of his illustrious descent.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Notes and table/Note 3

On Bk. III. chap. 24, § 17 (note 18 continued).
In three places in the Church History (Bk. III. chap. 24, § 17, chap. 25, § 2, and chap. 39, § 16) John’s “former” epistle is referred to, as if he had written only two. In the last passage the use of προτέρα instead of πρώτη might be explained as Westcott suggests (Canon of the New Testament, p. 77, note 2), by supposing Eusebius to be reproducing the words of Papias; but in the other passages this explanation will not do, for the words are certainly Eusebius’ own. In the Muratorian Canon only two epistles of John are mentioned, and in Irenæus the second epistle is quoted as if it were the first (see Westcott, ibid. p. 384, note 1). These facts lead Westcott to ask: “Is it possible that the second epistle was looked upon as an appendix to the first? and may we thus explain the references to two epistles of John?” He continues: “The first epistle, as is well known, was called ad Parthos by Augustine and some other Latin authorities; and the same title πρὸς Π€ρθους is given to the second epistle in one Greek manuscript (62 Scholz). The Latin translation of Clement’s Outlines (IV. 66) says: Secunda Johannis epistola quæ ad virgines (παρθένους) scripta simplissima est. Jerome, it may be added, quotes names from the third epistle as from the second (De nom. Hebr.).” On the other hand, in Bk. V. chap. 8, § 7, Eusebius speaks of the “first” (πρώτη) epistle of John, and in Bk. III. chap. 25, § 3, he expressly mentions a second and third epistle of John. It is evident, therefore, that whatever the use of προτέρα instead of πρώτη in connection with John’s first epistle may mean as used by others, it does not indicate a knowledge of only a first and second as used by him. It is by no means impossible, however, that Westcott’s suggestion may be correct, and that the first and second epistles were sometimes looked upon as but one, and it is possible that such use of them by some of his predecessors may account for Eusebius’ employment of the word προτέρα in three separate passages.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Notes and table/Note 6

On Bk. III. chap. 32, § 6 (note 14$^a$).
The Greek reads π€σης ἐκκλησίας (without the article), and so, two lines below, ἐν π€σῃ ἐκκλησί& 139·. All the translators (with the exception of Pratten in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VIII., who reads, “the churches”) render “the whole church,” as if reading πᾶς with the article. We have not, it is true, enough of Hegesippus’ writings to be able to ascertain positively his use of πᾶς, and it is possible that he carelessly employed it indifferently with or without the article to signify the definite “all” or “the whole.” In the absence of positive testimony, however, that he failed to draw the proper distinction between its use with and its use without the article, and in view of the fact that Eusebius himself (as well as other early Fathers so far as I am able to recall) is very consistent in making the distinction, I have not felt at liberty in my translation to depart from a strict grammatical interpretation of the phrases in question. Moreover, upon second thought, it seems quite as possible that Hegesippus meant to say “every” not “all”; for he can hardly have supposed these relatives of the Lord to have presided literally over the whole Church, while he might very well say that they presided each over the church in the city in which he lived, which is all that the words necessarily imply. The phrase just below, “in every church,” is perhaps as natural as “in the whole church.”
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Notes and table/Note 4

On Bk. III. chap. 25, § 4 (note 18 continued).
The words ἡ φερομένη Βαρν€βα ἐπιστολή have been commonly translated “the so-called Epistle of Barnabas,” or “the Epistle ascribed to Barnabas,” implying a doubt in Eusebius’ mind as to the authenticity of the work. This translation, however, is, in my opinion, quite unwarranted. There are passages in Eusebius where the word φέρομαι used in connection with writings cannot by any possibility be made to bear this meaning; cases in which it can be interpreted only “to be extant” or “in circulation.” Compare, for instance, Bk. II. chap. 15, § 1, Μ€ρκον οὗ τὸ εὐγγέλιον φέρεται; II. 18. 6, μονόβιβλα αὐτοῦ φέρεται; III. 9. 4; III. 16; III. 25. 3, ἡ λεγομένη ᾽Ιακώβου φέρεται; III. 37. 4; III. 39. 1; IV. 3. 1, εἰσέτι δὲ φέρεται παρὰ πλείστοις; IV. 14. 9, ἐν τῇ δηλωθείσῃ πρὸς φιλιππησίους αὐτοῦ γραφῇ φερομένῃ εἰς δεῦρο. Compare also IV. 15. I; IV. 23. 4, 9, 12; IV. 24. 1; IV. 28; V. 5. 6; 19. 3; 23. 2; 24. 10; VI. 15. 1; VI. 20, &c. These passages, and many others which are cited by Heinichen (Vol. III. p. 91), prove that the word is frequently used in the sense of “extant” or “in circulation.” But in spite of these numerous examples, Heinichen maintains that the word is also used by Eusebius in another and quite different sense; namely, “so-called” or “ascribed to,” thus equivalent to λεγομένη. A careful examination, however, of all the passages cited by him in illustration of this second meaning will show that in them too the word may be interpreted in the same way as in those already referred to; in fact, that in many of them that is in itself the more natural interpretation. The passages to which we refer are Bk. III. chap. 25, §§ 2, 3, and 4; III. 3. 1, τὴν δὲ φερομένην αὐτοῦ δευτέραν; III. 39. 6 (where I ought to have translated “is extant under the name of John”). To draw a distinction between the meaning of the word as used in these and in the other passages is quite arbitrary, and therefore unwarranted. The sense in which, as we have found, Eusebius so commonly employs the word attaches also to the Latin word fertur in the Muratorian Canon. I have not endeavored to trace carefully the use of the word in other writers; but while many instances occur in which it is certainly used in this sense, others in which either interpretation is allowable, I have not yet found one in which this meaning is ruled out by the nature of the case or by the context. In view of these facts I believe we should be careful to draw a sharp distinction between λεγομένη or καλουμένη and φερομένη when used in connection with written works.
A considerable portion of my translation was in type before I had observed this distinction between the two words, which is commonly quite overlooked, and as a consequence in a few cases my rendering of the word φερομένη is inaccurate. All such cases I have endeavored to call attention to in these supplementary notes.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Notes and table/Note 5

On Bk. III. chap. 28, § 1.
For the Disputation which is ascribed to him, read his extant Disputation.
# Notable South Australians/Edward Davy, M.R.C.S.

Layout 2
​ ​liberal salary attached to the office—£1,500 a year—from July, 1853, to the end of the following year, when the assay department was abolished. He afterwards started farming near Malmesbury, combining it with the practice of his profession, but the farming enterprise proving pecuniarily unsuccessful, he removed to Malmesbury, and devoted himself exclusively to his medical practice and the education of his family. He also took an active part in local affairs, was for many years a member of the borough council, several times mayor, and for more than twenty years an active justice of the peace.
# Notable South Australians/Edward Walter Wickes

Layout 2
Edward Walter Wickes
WAS a native of Stepney, England, and for many years known in the country districts as a lay preacher. His career as a teacher commenced in 1816, and he continued in that profession until 1845, when he left his native land for South Australia. During his scholastic career in England he published a grammar, which was extensively used, and after lie came to this colony he produced several elementary works which were largely circulated. Shortly after his arrival, in conjunction with the Rev. J. B. Titherington, he opened a school at North Adelaide, and continued it until 1854. Mr. Wickes was a member of the first Board of Education, and soon after its formation became the secretary, retaining that post for fourteen years, till failing health caused him to resign. He acted as lay preacher at Hindmarsh and other suburbs of Adelaide. He died at North Adelaide, August 30, 1868, aged 73.
# Notable South Australians/E. J. Catlow

Layout 2
E. J. Catlow
ARRIVED in Adelaide in 1855; died at Mount Gambier, in March, 1885. He was an accomplished Latin, French, and German scholar; and his translations from the German poets were much admired when they appeared in the daily press. Mr. Catlow was of a singularly active turn of mind, and shortly after his arrival in the colony he turned his attention to the construction of magic squares, and after much research discovered a method of forming them of any required dimensions. These rules were so ingenious that a paper on the subject, written by him, was read by Mr. C. Todd before the Adelaide Philosophical Society. Mr. Catlow was a teacher under the Education Department for many years, and master of the Finniss Vale, Yankalilla, and Compton Downs Schools.
# Notable South Australians/Edward William Hawker

Layout 2
Edward William Hawker.
ELDEST son of the Hon. George Charles Hawker. Bom at Bungaree, near Clare, S. A. Educated at St. Peter's College, and at Harrow, and Trinity College, Cambridge. Took LL.B. degree in Law Honors in 1873, and B.A. degree in Natural Science Honors in 1874. Called to the English Bar in 1874, having kept his terms at the Inner Temple. Returned to the colony in 1875. Admitted to the South Australian Bar in 1880. "Was in partnership with Messrs. Bundey & Dashwood for three years, after which he joined Mr. John Nicholson, with whom he is still in partnership. Stood for the district of Stanley (in which lies his birthplace) at the general elections in 1884, and was returned at the head of the poll. He and his father are the first instance of a father and son being in the Legislative Assembly of this colony at the same time.