Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 8.djvu/551

 JOHN

483

JOHN

is said, that he had ever allowed himself to defend such a proposition.

The interest it excited was not to die with liim. As long as the Duke of Burgundy was all-powerful in Paris, the argument could not be attacked publicly, but when he was expelled, Gerson, in a sermon de- livered before the king, strongly denounced seven propositions of John Parvus as heretical and scan- dalous (1413). Shortly afterwards the king a.sked the Bishop of Paris, Gerard de Montaigu, and the in- quisitor of France to examine them and to take what- ever action they judged proper — without however mentioning the name of John Parvus. The bishop and the inquisitor with sixty doctors went into what was called a "Council of the Faith". After several sit- tings the speech of John Parvus and nine propositions, said to have been extracted from it, were condemned (23 February, 1414) by decree of the Bishop of Paris and of the inquisitor, and the book containing them was publicly burnt three days later. In the month of March following, the Duke of Burgundy appealed from the decision of the Bishop of Paris to Pope John XXIII. The pontiff entrusted the investigation to three cardinals. On the other hand, Gerson and the ambassadors of the King of France Ijrought the affair before the council. At this juncture. Pope John XXIII left Constance (20 March, 1415) and withdrew from the council, while the King of France and the Duke of Burgundy made peace by the Treaty of Arras (22 February, 1415). Thereupon Charles VI ordered his representatives to take no action at the council against John Parvus, provided the Duke of Burgundy wouUl also let the matter rest. Gerson broke the agreement by trying to obtain from the council a declaration that the writings of John Parvus contained numerous errors in matters of faith. The Duke of Burgundy replied by a letter in which, while disavowing the general principles that formed the major proposition of the argument of John Parvus, he maintained that the propositions condemned by the Bishop of Paris were not contained in the dis- course. Thereupon the three cardinals entrusted with the duke's appeal, cited the Bishop of Paris to appear before them, and as he failed to do so, they reversed his decision, declaring at the same time that they did not intend thereby to approve of the propo- sitions condemned by him, but only wished to do justice to the Duke of Burgundy, who had not been heard at the trial. From that moment the trial of John Parvus became the battleground of the am- bassadors of France and of the Duke of Burgundy, and even of the Emperor Sigismvmd. The council had no intention of lending its authority to any political party, and in its fifteenth session, 6 July, 1415, contented itself with a general condemnation of tyrannicide as upheUl in the following proposition: "A tyrant may lie licitly and meritoriously, and rightly put to death by any vassal or subject, even by resorting to secret plots, adulation, and feigned friendship, notwithstanding any oath of fealty to him or treaty concluded with him, without any judicial decree or order ". But John Parvus was not mentioned and the council avoided saying that any such proposi- tion was contained in his address, and no further deci- sion was pronounced by the coinicil on the particular case of John Parvus. After securing the condemna- tion of John Parvus in August, 1410, King Charles VI two years later disavowed Gerson and his supporters (6 October, 1418), and on 3 Novemlicr, 141S, he rehabil- itated John Parvus and annulled the sentences pro- nounced against him. This perhaps was the fairest settlement of the case against him. His venal and odious defence of the assassination is worthy of all censure, but in justice it must be admitted that the propositions attributed to him by his adversaries are not contained in his discourse, at least in the form in which it has reached us.

BuL.EDS, Historia Universitalis Pari&ienais (Paris, 1770): Gerson, Opera, ed. Ddpi.n, V (Antwerp, 1706); Hellot, Nobles et vilains, le iniracle de Basqueinlle, d'apris lea poesies ine~ dites dr J ran Petit (Paris. 1S95): Le Verdier, Le livre du champ d'or et n„irr^ ,„, -,,,■■■ inrrliis ,/r M' Jean Le Petit (Paris, 1896); Bess, Zr.r <:. '■ '' t.^ ('nr/.-itanzer Komils, Studicn I, Frank- reichs Ki ' / ./. r I'rozess des Jean Petit (Marburg,

1894);\ \i i.i, / /,,-,. <! 1< iirand schisme d^Occident,\l\ nad IV (Paris, J'JOJ^ l)t.MFLE, Chartidaritini Universitatis Parisi- ensis. Ill aud I\' (Paris, 189.3, 1897); Mansi, Sac. conciliorum collectio, XXVII (V'enice, 1784). Antoine Degert.

John Payne, Blessed, b. in the Diocese of Peter- borough; d. at Chelmsford, 2 April, 1582. He went to Douai in 1574, was ordained priest Ijy the Arch- bishop of Cambrai on 7 April, 1576, and left for England with Blessed Cuthbert Mayne on 24 April. He resided for the most part with Anne, widow of Sir William Petre, and daughter of Sir William Browne, sometime Lord Mayor of London, at In- gatestone, Essex, but also in London. Shortly after his arrival he reconciled George Godsalve, B.A. Oxon., a Marian deacon, of Bath diocese, whom he sent to Douai to be prepared for the priesthood, which he received at Cambrai on 20 December, 1576. John was arrested and imprisoned early in 1577, but, being not long afterwards discharged, came back to Douai in November. He probably returned to In- gatestone before Cliristmas, 1579. Early in July, 1581, he and Godsalve, who had come to England in June, 1577, were arrested in Warwickshire through the instrumentality of "Judas" EHot, and, after being examined by Walsingham at Greenwich, were committed to the Tower on 14 July. There Blessed John was racked on 14 August, and again on 31 Octoljer. Eliot had accused him of plotting to kill the queen and her tliree most trusted statesmen. On this charge he was indicted at Chelmsford on 23 March, and, though no attempt was made to cor- roborate Eliot's story, the jury gave the verdict expected of them. At his execution the crowd interfered to prevent the infliction of the last bar- barities until he was dead.

Camm. Lives of the English Marti/rs (London, 1904-5), II, 424; Allen, A Brief e Historie, ed. Pollen (London, 1908).

John B. Wainewright.

John Rochester, Blessed, priest and martyr, born probably at Terling, Essex, England, about 1498; died at York, 1 1 May, 1 537. He was the third son of John Rochester, of Terling, and Grisold, daughter of Walter Writtle, of Bobbingworth. He joined the Carthu- sians, was a choir monk of the Charterhouse in London, and strenuously opposed the new doctrine of the royal supremacy. He was arrested and sent a prisoner to the Carthusian convent at Hull. From there he was removed to York, where he was hung in chains. With him there suffered one Jamks ^\'ALWORTH (?W.\n- nert; Walwerke), Cartliusian priest and martyr, concerning whom little or not liins,' is known. He may have been the "Jacobus Wuhxci-kc" who signed the Oath of Succession of 1534. ' John Rochester was beatified in 1888 by Leo XIII.

His elder brother. Sir Robert Rochester, K. G. (b. about 1494; d. 28 Nov., 1557), was azealou-s Catho- lic. Before 1551 he had received the appointment of comptroller of the household to Princess Mary Tudor. In that year the Pri\'y Coimcil ordered him to prevent any priest saying Mass in the princess's household, but he refused to interfere in any way with her private de- votions, and was accordingly sent to the Tower. The next year he was allowed to retire to the country on account of his health, and was soon permitted to take up the post of comptroller once more, ^^^len the prin- cess ascended the throne as JIary I, she remembered Rochester's faithful service. He was made chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; and he entered the inner circle of the Privy Council. He was one of the parlia- mentary representatives of Essex, 1553-5. He was buried at the Charterhouse at Sheen.