Copecius Nicholas  was a native of Transylvania. Bock includes him in his "Bibliotheca Antitrinitariorum," but says that he recollects seeing nothing further concerning him, than a statement of the fact, that he was a student in the College of Racow, with an annual allowance of 50 florins.

(Vidend. Bock, Hist. Ant. T. I. p. 110.)

Le Roux Didier- Unitariens - © Since 2006 -  All rights reserved " No reproduction, even partial, other than those planned in the article L 122-5 of the code of the intellectual property, can be made by this site without the express authorization of the author ".

Cooper John is mentioned by the Rev. S. Palmer, as incumbent of Cheltenham, at the passing of the Act of Uniformity. He was born about the year 1620, and educated at Pembroke College, Oxford. When John Biddle was deprived of the Mastership of the Crypt Free-Grammar School, at Gloucester, on account of his Unitarian sentiments, Mr. Cooper was appointed, by the Magistrates of that city, in their capacity of trustees, to succeed him. After this, Mr. C. became Minister of the parish Church at Cheltenham, from which he was ejected in 1662; and it is a remarkable circumstance, as tending to shew how ineffectual mere human efforts are to impede the progress of divine truth, that he became an active supporter of those very principles, in defence of which Mr. Biddle had been so great a sufferer, and for supporting which he had been deprived of the Mastership of the above School. After Mr. Cooper's ejectment, he was chosen Minister of a Unitarian congregation in Cheltenham, and appears to have held that office for about twenty years, until the time of his decease, which, according to the following memorandum, extracted by Mr. John Goding from an old parochial register, took place in 1682.

"In the yeare of our Lord God, 1682, Rev. John Cooper, Minister of the Unyterian Conventicle of this place, March 18, agt . 62."

He left a daughter, named Mary, who died about the year 1696 or 1697; and whose principles were Unitarian, like those of her father. The Minister, who preached her funeral sermon, commended her to his auditors as a pattern of Christian virtue, however erroneous she might have been in her judgment.

Mr. Cooper was succeeded in the ministerial office of the Unitarian congregation at Cheltenham, by Ralph Taylor, Henry Sturmy, Thomas Macock, et Allan Kear : but whether they exercised that office jointly, or separately, it is difficult to say. They are all described as very serious and diligent, devout and pious, strictly honest, and charitable according to their ability; but not so accomplished in human learning as their predecessor. The names of the subsequent Ministers are not known; but Mr. Goding informs us, that the last was the Rev. John Welles, who died in 1789, and whose name is still remembered. "The edifice wherein these persons proclaimed the great truth, that Jehovah is One and his name One," says Mr. Goding, "has long since been removed. It occupied a portion of the site of the present Mechanics' Institution, and, hke all the primitive edifices of the Nonconformists, was hid from general observation, being only accessible by a narrow arched passage from the main street. From the united testimony of many of the more aged inhabitants, and also of orthodox Ministers, yet surviving, who have preached in it, this building was of a very antiquated appearance, containing a gallery, ornamented with curious old oak carvings, and capable of holding 150 to 200 persons. At the period Mr. Cooper undertook the ministry of this humble edifice, Cheltenham had just recovered from the evil effects of the CivilWars, and contained 1500 inhabitants. After this memorable event, the place gradually declined to a small village, so much so, that there are yet surviving those who boast with pride that they could in the days of their youth name all the then residents of the town. It was at this last-named period that the descendants of the original worshipers, finding their numbers diminished, and in all probability unable to support their Pastor, had recourse to mortgaging their house of prayer. This was, however, their last effort as a society, and at the death of the Minister the place was consigned to the mortgagee, who resided at "Warwick, and for ever closed as a Unitarian chapel."

(Vidend. Palmer's Nonconformists' Memorial, Vol. I. p. 532. The Grounds and Occasions of the Controversy concerning the Unity of God, &c, the Methods by which it has been managed, and the Means to compose it: by a Divine of the Church of England. London, 1698, 4to. p. 16. Christian Keformer for 1844, Vol. XL pp. 386—391.)

Le Roux Didier- Unitariens - © Since 2006 -  All rights reserved " No reproduction, even partial, other than those planned in the article L 122-5 of the code of the intellectual property, can be made by this site without the express authorization of the author ".

It is chiefly to Robert Nelson, Esq., the biographer of Bishop Bull, that we are indebted for the few particulars, which have come down to us respecting Gilbert Clerke. Mr. Nelson's account of him is, on the whole, as favourable as could have been expected: but when this writer has occasion to allude to the controversy respecting the belief of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, the admiration, which he never fails to display for his great oracle, leads him to speak slightingly of Mr. Clerke's "Ante-Nicenismus," and "Brevis Responsio." It was in the latter of these, published A. D. 1695, that Mr. Clerke attacked the arguments advanced by Bishop Bull, in his "Defensio Synodi Nicaenae;" and he could not long have survived that time, because, within three years, we find him mentioned, with several other defenders of the Unitarian doctrine, in " The Grounds and Occasions of the Controversy concerning the Unity of God," as not then living. An answer to Gilbert Clerke was found among the papers of Dr. Grabe, partly in the handwriting of Bishop Bull, and was published in the third volume of his Lordship's Sermons and Discourses, 1714, 8vo., entitled "Breves Animadversiones," &c.; or, as the title of the translation, which precedes the Latin work in the volume, runs, " The Consubstantiality and the Coeternity of the Son of God, with the Father, asserted; or some few Animadversions on a Treatise of Mr. Gilbert Clerke, entituled 'Ante-Nicenismus,' so far as the said Author pretends to answer Dr. George Bull's 'Defence of the Nicene Faith.'" Mr. Nelson says, that both Mr. Clerke's works were published with his name, "as not being ashamed or afraid to own what he had vritten, because he took it to be the very cause of God, and of his Unity against all sorts of Polytheists."

No account is given of Gilbert Clerke in the Biographical Dictionaries, except where his name is cursorily mentioned in connexion with that of Bishop Bull. But, what is still more remarkable, Mr. Lindsey has entirely overlooked him, in his "Historical View of the State of the Unitarian Doctrine and Worship, from the Reformation to our own Times." This oversight was pointed out to Mr. L. by his friend, the Rev. W. Hopkins, Vicar of Cuckfield, in Sussex, who says, "As I have the tract of Mr. Clerke, upon which Bishop Bull made animadversions, I compared them together many years ago, and I find this observation in a vacant space before the title-page, 'The famous Bull wrote animadversions upon this treatise, but he has left many arguments without the least appearance of an answer, which strongly support the Unitarian cause; this cause, indeed, is founded upon such powerful evidence, as cannot be overthrown by the wit of man.' I am inclined to judge, that Bull saw something which he could not answer, and this raised his indignation. I entirely agree with Mr. Clerke, that Bull, in the last section of his Defence, relative to the subordination, had yielded great part of the question up to the Unitarians, or rather, had given it quite up. Subordination, in any sense, absolutely demolishes the Athanasian system." (Vide infra, No. 6.)

We learn from Mr. Nelson, that, among his contemporaries, Gilbert Clerke "was esteemed a good Grecian, and a good Scripturist;" but that "he chiefly consulted the modern criticks, when he read the Bible, not omitting the Polonians, or else trusted to his own invention and sagacity in that part of Divinity, without ever advising with the ancients, of whom he had a very low esteem." He regarded the controversy between the Church of England and the Church of Rome, as unworthy of his attention. The errors of the latter appeared to him so gross and palpable, as not to deserve the least consideration. This led him to study the writings of the Socinians, whose views he deemed more rational and scriptural: but he did not adopt all their opinions with an implicit faith, or symbolize with them in their notions concerning the divine attributes. Hence, he was in the habit of saying, that he was no Socinian. But when others spoke ill of the Socinians, he was not tardy or lukewarm in defending their cause. Baxter, in his "Cure of Church Divisions," having classed Socinians and Mahometans together, "honest Gilbert" sought a private interview with him, and made this classification a subject of remonstrance. About five years later than this, we find him renewing his expostulation by letter. "I see," says he, in an epistolary communication to that eminent Presbyterian Divine, "that both you and Dr. Stillingfleet make no scruple to reckon Socinians (as they are commonly called, who own not Socinus for a master, but a fellow-servant) with Turks, Atheists and Papists. You should do well to consider of this point a little better than I doubt you have, before you censure so much: upon impartial search you may find them to be (as I believe they are) the best sort of Christians, and the best reformed, although Socinus had his errors, especially about God's prescience of future contingents; and did not Luther err foully in the point of Consubstantiation? But, Sir, you may remember what a hideous name an Arminian was lately, and now they are the prime sons of the Church of England, and very few are now offended for difference in those opinions: why might not a little more time bring the Socinians (who believe in God through Christ as offering a sacrifice of suffering obedience for the sins of the world, and as an exalted Saviour) into some tolerable favour, if such as you did not so stigmatize them? Some are so uncharitable, or so ignorant, as to say that Socinians are scarce Christians, although they believe Jesus to be the Christ, and therefore in St. John's judgment are born of God: they place the divinity of Christ in his unction, not much opposing human additions, but as they obscure this, or seem to be inconsistent with it; and therefore in Justin Martyr's opinion may be reckoned amongst orthodox Christians. I have gone under that name I confess, but upon fuller acquaintance, I have not found much dislike from the better sort, nor would any of our Ministers scruple to get me to preach for them, and therefore sure had somewhat a better opinion of me than a Mahumetan or an Atheist. As for their opinion about the Trinity, which hath given the most offence, as I remember yourself in your former answer to Dr. Stillingfleet doth dislike the damnatory part of the Creed of Athanasius, so doth Mr. Alsop in his answer, so doth Dr. Taylor in his 'Liberty of Prophesying:' and some Divines of the Church of England do refuse to read it. Can anything be more certain and evident than this, viz. that the Father is before the Son, and the Son before the Holy Spirit, who speaketh not of himself, but what he heareth? Whatever quirks, or scholastic niceties may be invented, such was the opinion of the ancients, as a man so well versed in antiquity as you are cannot but know, I mean before the Nicene Council." It is uncertain when the letter containing this remonstrance was written; but it probably had some effect in softening down Baxter's prejudices against the Socinians.

Mr. Nelson informs us, that some of Gilbert Clerke's personal friends mentioned the doctrine of Satisfaction, as one of the points, on which he differed from the Socinians; and that he seemed to hold some particular notions of his own upon this subject. What those notions were, we shall be best able to judge, from the following statement of them by himself, in the forementioned letter. "I will not deny but that although the Socinians do acknowledge the death of Christ as the slaying of the sacrifice to be offered in heaven, and the desert of sin from thence to be gathered, yet that they do speak too lankly and jejunely as to the immediate ends of Christ's dying: but they say not so much amiss as they who have (indeed, heretofore more than now) been always harping upon a rigorous legal satisfaction to vindictive justice to the utmost farthing, and some said in Hell itself; insomuch as many of their hearers, of themselves have took it for a gravelling question, how that doctrine could consist with God's free grace, or the necessity of man's holiness; and some have justified Socinus his charge, running into downright antinomianism and libertinism." The same interesting document brings us acquainted with the views of Gilbert Clerke on some other controverted points. "A catholick governing Church" he pronounces "a Popish chimaera," denying that there is "any such thing as a national governing Church." "Original Sin, as to the corruption of nature, or vicious inclinations," he says, "should be propounded rather as a curse than a sin; as part of God's curse for Adam's transgression, and the wickedness of the world, rather than so properly a sin as our own voluntary sins are." The Baptism of Infants, he admits, may, by possibility, be simply lawful; but he denies, that it is more scriptural than Adult Baptism, or, as Article xxvii. of the Church of England says, that "it is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ." Had the subscription been only negative, "possibly," says he, "I might have been content to hold my tongue." He thinks that the Primitive Christians, for a time, circumcised their children, whatever may have been the ancient practice with regard to Infant Baptism.

On the whole, perhaps, Mr. Nelson does not err widely from the truth, in the following estimate of the character of Gilbert Clerke. "He was a man of an open and frank disposition, but withal too bold, and easily to be heated; otherwise, the conduct of his life was sober and regular, not blemished with any remarkable immorality, but rather abounding with good works, which he earnestly pressed. He was very busy and zealous, in defending those new principles, which he had taken up, and which the gross absurdities of the Antinomian system, then much in vogue, had contributed more than a little to fling him into." The following works are known to have proceeded from his pen.

1. De Plenitudine Mundi. Lond. 1660, 8vo.

2. De Restitutione Corporum. Lond. 1662, 8vo.

3. The Spot Dial. Lond. 1687, 4to. The titles of the three preceding works are taken from Watt's Bibliotheca.

4. Finalis Concordia. The author himself alludes to this "little writing," in his correspondence with Baxter; and says, that among other ends of Christ's death, he has explained it "as an expiatory sacrifice of suffering obedience."

5. Ante-Nicenismus, sive Testimonia Patrum, qui scripserunt ante Concilium Nicenum, unde colligi potest Sensus Ecclesiae Catholicse, quoad Articulum de Trinitate. Cosmopoli, Anno 1694, 8vo. This valuable collection of testimonies from the Ante-Nicene Fathers contains internal evidence of having been composed without any special reference to the writings of Bishop Bull. It seems rather to have been the result of an independent perusal of the early Christian writers, with a view to satisfy the author's own mind as to the nature of the testimony which they give, on the great controverted questions of his own times, irrespectively either of Bull on the one hand, or of Zwicker and Sandius on the other. When it was written, the author had no copy of the works of Clemens Alexandrinus at hand; and what he says (p. 16) respecting the testimony of that Father is said from memory, and contained within the short compass of ten lines.

6. Brevis Responsio ad Domini D. Georgii Bulli 'Defensionein Synodi Nicenae:' in qua praecipua Capita Defensionis refutantur. A.D. 1695, 8vo. At the beginning of this Brief Reply to Bishop Bull's "Defence of the Council of Nice," the author gives the substance of Clemens Alexandrinus's testimony at considerable length, by way of supplement to the " Ante-Nicenismus." He then informs his readers, that when he had made this addition to his former treatise, he procured a copy of Dr. Bull's "Defensio Fidei Nicaenae," and read it carefully through. It appears, that he had been called to account by a friend, for writing on the subject of the Ante-Nicene faith, and taking no notice of what that confessedly great man had before written on the same subject. The reason which he assigns for this apparent neglect is, that Dr. Bull, in the 4th Section of his "Defensio Fidei Nicaenae," which treats of the subordination of the Son to the Father, had conceded the main point in dispute. He says, however, that on receiving the above admonition from his friend, he read over that author attentively, and saw no reason to expunge a single line of the "Ante-Nicenismus," although he acknowledges that Dr. Bull's acquaintance with the writings of the Fathers is greatly superior to his own, and that he has perused them with attention and discrimination. "I say nothing," he observes, "of his intercourse with learned men, and of his access to an infinite store of books; since he lives, as I hear, not far from Oxford. But, however, as regards the principal Fathers, whose testimonies I have cited, I have no doubt but I am able to defend what I have written; for the power of truth is very great. With regard to the suspected Fathers, and those petty writers, whose testimonies are derived from the works of later authors, I should not consider it worth my while to examine them, even if I were surrounded with books: but if any one else chooses to do so, I have no objection." He then proceeds with his answer to Dr. Bull, into the particulars of which our limits will not permit us to enter.

7. Oughtredus explicatus, sive Commentarius in ejus Clavem Mathematicam; cui additae sunt Planetarum Observationes, et Horologiorum Constructio: Authore Gilberto Clerk. Londini, 1682, 8vo. This work has been much valued by some of our ablest Mathematicians. The Commentary upon Oughtred's "ClavisMathematica" occupies 160 pages, and is dedicated to Sir Justinian Isham, Bart. The Observations on the Planets, &c, under the general title "Astronomica Specimina," fill 24 pages more, and are dedicated to Sir Walter Chetwynd, Knight.

(Vidend. Nelson's Life of Bishop Bull, Sect, lxxxiii. pp. 499—513. Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Mr. William Whiston, containing Memoirs of several of his Friends also: written by himself. Lond. 1749, p. 250. The Grounds and Occasions of the Controversy concerning the Unity of God, &c. p. 17. Belsham's Memoirs of the late Reverend Theophilus Lindsey, M.A. Lond. 1812, 8vo. pp. 511. 513. Monthly Repository, Vol. XVIII. pp. 65—71; Vol. XIX. pp. 452—455. 577—580. 726—730. Baxter MSS. in Dr. Williams's Library, RedCross Street, London. Voyt, Catal. Libr. Rarior. p. 35.)

Claude de Savoy  first appeared in the character of a religious reformer at Bern, in Switzerland, and, by his bold and startling doctrines, created a great sensation among the citizens of that republic. Simler and others apply to him the epithet Allobrox ; but Berchtoldt Haller, in a letter dated May 7th, 1534, calls him Gallus, a Frenchman. Schelhorn has attempted to reconcile the apparent discrepancy, by mentioning the fact, that the Allobroges, inhabiting the Pays de Vaud, the Genevese, and other inhabitants of the neighbouring territory, spoke the French language. It would appear, that Claude had acted in a military capacity, before he commenced religious reformer; for Stupanus says, that Celius Secundus Curio took refuge in a town, near Moncaglieri, called " Ramonisium, of which one Claude of Savoy had the command."

Claude was a follower of Servetus, whose opinions he disseminated in Savoy, Switzerland, Suabia and Bavaria. The Pastors of Bern endeavoured to bring him over to a belief in the preexistence and divinity of Christ, by an appeal to the writings of the New Testament; but he could not be prevailed upon to make any further admission, than that Christ was the Son of God by nature, and in that sense God himself. He persisted in denying Christ's existence from eternity; and contended that he was born in time, although in a miraculous manner, of the Virgin Mary. He said that Christ preexisted in the eternal decree of God, not in reality, but in idea only; and that it is purely as a man that he is an object of our faith. From this point the Pastors of Bern were unable to move him: but they insisted upon his keeping these views to himself, and in a few weeks afterwards he left their canton. On this occasion Bullinger composed a treatise in defence of the two natures in Christ, with the double object of preventing the spread of Claude's opinions, and asserting the orthodoxy of the Swiss Churches.

Disappointed at the opposition which he had to encounter in Switzerland, Claude now resolved to visit Germany ; and on his road he passed through Basle, where he had an interview with Oswald Myconius. But he was arrested, and sent summarily away. On being released, he withdrew to Wittenberg, for the purpose of conversing with Luther, and his friends: but there also he found the recollection of John Campanus too fresh in men's minds, to allow him any chance of success, in promoting the particular object which he had in view. After a stay of some months, therefore, during which he was employed in propagating his opinions among those who were willing to listen to him, he was warned to take his departure, and returned to the north of Italy, in the year 1537. Beza informs us, in the Preface to his " History of Valentine Gentilis," that Claude, after some stay in Italy, returned into Germany. At Augsburg he succeeded in procuring a few followers ; but when the circumstance beicame known, he was arrested, and compelled to quit the city without delay. Caspar Schwenckfeldt, in a letter addressed to the brethren at Augsburg and Strasburg, in 1542, warns them, in the strongest terms, against the Antitrinitarian opinions of Claude.

We find him next at Constance, where he conducted himself so discreetly, as to gain the friendship of Ambrose Blaurer. But though he refrained from conversing on his favourite topics, he hesitated not to commit his thoughts to writing. In a treatise, the contents of which Martin Frecht subsequently communicated to his friends at Constance, occurs the following statement of Claude's opinions, written by himself. "' The Lord thy God is one.' Whence then are there two others ? particularly since it is written, ' Who hath been his counsellor ?' That man alone, whom Mary conceived and brought forth, is called the Son of God. Thus, the angels sang concerning him,' This day is born a Saviour of the world:' they did not however say, ' This day a God is born.' But if Jesus is thus divided into God and man, the Virgin would not be the mother of Christ, but only of a part of him. Observe also the expression ' this day,' which indicates a definite time. He was not, therefore, begotten eternally of the Father, as they falsely imagine. It is likewise sufficiently shewn, by the declaration ' he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham,' that the Father, wishing to reconcile the world to himself, willed to do this by a creature, and by blood, and not by any divinity. It is not said, that he took on him a sonship, which had existed from eternity, but only the seed of Abraham. I confess, however, that Jesus Christ is God in that manner, in which he himself said that he was. If he called those gods, to whom the word of God came, how much more him, whom the Father sanctified; who received the Holy Spirit above his fellows, so that all might receive it through him from the Father. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, and that he alone was from eternity; and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. I believe that he was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and born of a virgin, and at a given time; but not therefore from eternity. I believe also in the Spirit, but not in God the Holy Ghost. In short, I do not believe, that three persons are one God; but I know that they are three men. Three persons are three men, and not one God." Frecht adds, that Claude further expresses himself thus: "Christ is from eternity in the Word,—in promise. He was also before Abraham in dignity, as John the Baptist says concerning him, Mark iii. But he was not Christ in that [Word ?] from eternity. He was Christ in Mary : before that he was nothing. God also is one from eternity, and was not the Father from eternity; for he became a Father, when he created men and Christ. It is said, ' In the beginning was the word.' Christ is the word; that is, the speaking word. It is also said, ' the word became flesh;' and no one denies that the word which God spoke, which he promised, became flesh."

About the year 1550, as we learn from Schelhorn, Claude was at Memmingen, where he endeavoured to persuade some of the inhabitants, that the Virgin Mary bore many sons besides Christ; that there are not three persons in one essence ; that the Father alone is the true God, and is greater than the Son; and that the Scriptures have been corrupted, particularly John i. 1, the true reading of the last clause of which, he contended, was, "and the word was God's." The same conjecture was afterwards revived by Samuel Crellius, with whom it is supposed by many to have originated; but having the authority of no manuscript, or version in its favour, it meets with few advocates among the Unitarians of the present day.

Claude further said, that the truth was not yet brought to light, but that it would at length be rescued, by himself, from the obscurity in which it lay. He pretended also to be able to interpret dreams, and predict future events; and denounced judgment upon all Cities and Magistrates, that did not believe in him. But he was banished from the town; and efforts were made to convince his followers of their errors. These facts Schelhorn professes to have learnt from public documents. But the same writer informs us, that it required no less than five years of incessant labour, on the part of the Pastors of Memmingen, and of Ludwig Rab, an eminent Theologian, who was brought from Ulm to Memmingen expressly for the purpose, to re-convert those, whom Claude had succeeded in bringing over to his own opinions.

After the year 1555, we hear nothing more of him ; and the time and place of his death are buried in the same impenetrable obscurity as those of his birth.

Caspar Schwenckfeldt speaks of him as the founder of one of the Anabaptist sects, which took from him the name of Claudians; and says that by the Logos, in John's Gospel, he understood the idea of the redemption of the world, conceived in the Divine Mind. The middle clause of John i. 1,—" the word was with God,"—he interpreted, " Deus secum decrevit" (God determined with himself); and the first clause in verse 14,—'"the word was made flesh,"— "Deus decretum suum perfecit, et manifestum reddidit" (God accomplished his decree, and made it manifest).

None of the writings of Claude remain ; but Schwenckfeldt, Haller and Bullinger, have all given separate and independent accounts of his opinions.

(Vidend. Bock, Hist. Ant. T. I . pp. 103—106; T. II. pp. 298—300. 308. 409. 415,416. Trechsel, Mich. Servet und seine Vorganger, S. 56 —59. Epistolae ab Ecclcs. Selv. Reformatoribus, vel ad eos scripts, Cent. i. p. 139. Schelhornii Diss. Epistolar. de Mino Celso Senensi, Ulmaj, 1748, pp. 74—77. Amoen. Literar. T. XIV. p. 337; T. XI. pp. 91, 92.)

Ciachovius John , (Polon. Ciachowski,) was the grandson of George Schomann. His name must not be confounded with that ofCichovius, against whom Jonas Schlichtingius wrote. The Christian name of John seems to have been that of his father, who was also a Socinian. In 1634, John Ciachovius the younger was admitted among the alumni of the College of Racow; and in the next year he became one of the Racovian exhibitioners. In 1638, when some of the young men belonging to that institution had beaten down with stones a cross placed near one of the entrances to the town, he was compelled, among others, to seek refuge from the popular fury by flight, and deemed it prudent, for a time at least, to remain in concealment; for a resolution was passed in that year, that, if the place of John Ciachovius's retreat became known, he should be appointed tutor to the children of Dreschovius. In the year 1641, he was nominated, by the Synod of Piaski, to the office of Preacher to the Church of Tychomel. In 1643, we find him living at Dantzic on a public stipend, granted by the Synod of Siedliski, under whose direction he was preparing a Reply to Botsaccus, and a Defence of Crellius's Book, "De Uno Deo Patre." In 1645, he was stationed as Minister to the Churches of Volhynia, and living under the hospitable roof of Peter Suchodolski; and in the following year he filled the office of Domestic Chaplain to the Lady Suchodolska. In 1649, he officiated as Minister to the Church of Radostow; in 1650, to that of Siedliski; and finally, in 1653, to that of Czarcow.

(Vidend. Bock, Hist. Ant. T. I. p. 100.)

Le Roux Didier- Unitariens - © Since 2006 -  All rights reserved " No reproduction, even partial, other than those planned in the article L 122-5 of the code of the intellectual property, can be made by this site without the express authorization of the author ".

Ciachovius George,  (Polon. Ciachowski,) was the brother of John Ciachovius. In the year 1644, he obtained permission from the Assembly of Siedliski to travel; for which purpose a sum was granted him out of the Church's funds. On his return, he was patronized by the family of the Arcissevii, to whose children he is supposed to have acted as tutor. In 1648, it was determined, at the Assembly of Daszow, that he should devote himself wholly to the study of Theology; and with that view he went to reside under the roof of his brother John, at Daszow. But in the year following he obtained leave to accompany some young Polish Noblemen on their travels, on condition that he should return, if required. A short time after he had left Poland he received a summons to return; and in the year 1650, the Church at Raciborsk was committed to his trust. But he either declined to return, or refused to undertake the particular charge assigned to him. In 1651, therefore, the Assembly of Czarcow again reminded him of the engagement into which he had entered. In the year following, his services were placed at the disposal of Stephen Niemiericius, on the condition of his preaching at Czerniechow; and he was confirmed in this office, and ordained in 1655. The Synod of Raszcow, in the same year, ordered him to prepare an abridged translation of the " Ethics" of John Crellius into the Polish language. At the Assembly of 1662, the last which was held in Poland, he was nominated Minister to the Transylvanians; but the nomination was not confirmed, for in 1663 he held a station on the borders of the March of Brandenburg, and with Daniel Lechocki had the onerous charge of the Polish exiles in Germany.

(Vidend. Bock,Hist. Ant . T. I. pp. 100, 101.)

Le Roux Didier- Unitariens - © Since 2006 -  All rights reserved " No reproduction, even partial, other than those planned in the article L 122-5 of the code of the intellectual property, can be made by this site without the express authorization of the author ".

Chrastovius Andrew, (Polon. Chrzastowski, or Chrzonstowski,) was a Polish Knight, and Aulic Councillor to the King of Poland, who left the Evangelical party, and joined the Unitarians. He was the author of the following writings.

1. A Dialogue between an Evangelical Noble, and an Evangelical Minister. 1618, 4to. In this Dialogue, which was written in the Polish language, the author treats on the discipline and rites of the Evangelical Church, from which he had seceded, and to which he refused to return, till these were amended. A reply to this Dialogue was published by the Ministers of the Evangelical Church in the following year ; and was attributed to Grzybowski, an Elder of that Church.

2. A Defence of Andrew Chrastovius, against the Preachers and Ministers of the Evangelical Denomination, in the District of Lublin. July 31st, 1619, 4to. Polon.

3. A Letter addressed to the Synod of Lublin, refusing to obey the Summons to attend that Synod.

4. A Letter of Expostulation respecting the Cavils of the Evangelical Ministers, addressed to the Synod of Ozarow, in 1617.

(Vidend. Sandii B. A. p. 108. Bock, Hist. Ant. T. I. pp. 98, 99.)

Le Roux Didier- Unitariens - © Since 2006 -  All rights reserved " No reproduction, even partial, other than those planned in the article L 122-5 of the code of the intellectual property, can be made by this site without the express authorization of the author ".