UNIGENITUS
128
UNIGENITUS
imprisonment for life for the third. The Act was to
be read in church four times during the following year
and once a year afterwards. It was repealed by I
Mary, sess. 2, c. 2, but revived with certain altera-
tions by 1 EUz., c. 2, and confirmed by 1 James I, c. 25.
It was made perpetual so far as it relates to the Estab-
lished Church of England by 5 Anne, e. 5 (or c. 8
according to the chronological table of statutes).
Queen Mary contented herself with repealing these statutes of Edward and thus restoring the ancient liberty. No fresh Uniformity Act appeared on the statute book till Protestantism returned under Eliza- beth. Then the well known "Act for the Uniformity of Common Prayer and Service in the Churcli and Administration of the Sacraments" (1 Ehz., c. 2) was passed. The first effect of this statute was to repeal the Act of Mary as and from 24 June, 1559, and to restore the "Book of Common Prayer" from that date. The "Second Prayer-book" of Edward VI with certain additions and alterations was thenceforth to be used, and any clergyman neglecting to use it or substitut- ing any other form of open prayer or preaching against it, was on conviction to suffer penalties which increased with each offence till on the third conviction they mounted to deprivation from all spiritual pre- ferment and imprisonment for life. Similarly severe penalties culminating in the forfeiture of all goods and chattels and imprisonment for life were decreed against aU persons who spoke in derision of the "Book of Common Prayer". Attendance at church service on Sunday at the parish church was rendered com- pulsory, and any person absent without reasonable cause was to pay a fine of twelve pence, which wovild be equivalent to ten shillings in modern English money, or two dollars and a half. Long and exten- sive provisions for enforcing the Act are included, and one section provides for uniformity in the ornaments of the Church and ministers. This enacts that the same ornaments shall be retained "as was in this Church of England, by authority of Parliament, in the second year of King Edward VI".
This Act proved a powerful weapon against the CathoUcs, who could not conscientiously obey it, and it was used consistently as a means to harass and impoverish them. So effective was it that it needed no amending, and a century elapsed before the next Uniformity Act was passed. This was the celebrated Act of Charles II (13 and 14 Chas. II, c. 4: according to .some computations it is quoted as 15 Chas. II, c. 4). It was followed by a short Act of Relief (15 Chas. II, c. 6). This Act is of little or no special interest to Catholics, for it was primarily designed to regulate the worship of the Church of England, and so far as Catholics were concerned it added nothing to the provisions of the Edwardine and EHzabethan Acts.
Relief from the Acts of Uiiif(ninit.\ was granted to Catholics by the Second Catholic Relief Act (31 Geo. Ill, c. 32), though the benefits of the Act were limited to those who made the declaration and took the oath under the .Act. So much of this statute as related to the declaration and oath was repealed in 1871 by the Promissory Oaths Act (34 and 35 Vict., c. 48). There were certain restrictions and conditions as to Catholic places of worship, but these were changed in 1832 by the Act 2 and 3 Wm. IV, c. 115, by which Catholics were placed on the .«ame footing as Protestant dis- senters in this and some other respects. Incidentally this statute made it, compulsory to certify Catholic chapels to the .\nglican bishop and archdeacon and the quarter sessions. Hut this restriction was abol- ished in IS').') by IS and 19 Vict., c. 81, which proviilcd that such buildings could be notifiedto the registrar- general instead. Even this jjrovision has long fallen into disuse and it is not custduiary to register Catholic churches except for the solenmizatioii of marriage. Thus for Catholics, as for Nonconformists, the pro- visions of the Uniformity Acts have been gradually
repealed and now they apply only to the Established
Church of England; but to that extent they are still
on the .statute-books and as late as 1872 a statute
entitled ".\n Act for the Amendment of the Act of
Uniformity" was passed (35 and 36 Vic, c. 35). As
long as the Church of England is the estabUshed re-
ligion its worship will be regulated by statute, so that
Acts of Uniformity in one shape or another will re-
main part of the Enghsh code of law unless, and until,
disestablishment takes place.
The Statutes at Large; Chronological Table and Index of Statutes (London, ISSl); Lilly xsd Wallis. Manual of the Law specially affecting Catholics (London, 1893); Anstet, Guide to the Laws of England affecting Roman Catholics (London, 1842).
Edwin Burton.
Unigenitus, a celebrated Apostolic Constitution of Clement XI, condemning 101 propositions of Pas- quier Quesnel. In 1671 Quesnel had published a book entitled "Abrege de la morale de I'Evangile". It contained the Four Gospels in French, with short notes explanatory of the te.xt, at the same time serving as aids for meditation. The work was approved by Bishop Vialart of Chalons. An enlarged edition, con- taining an annotated French text of the New Testa- ment, ai)peared in three small volumes in 1678, and a later edition in four volumes appeared under the title "Le nouvcau testament en frangais avec des reflex- ions morales sur chaque verse, pour en rendre la lec- ture plus utile et la meditation plus aisee" (Paris, 1693-94). This last edition was highly recom- mended by Noailles, who had succeeded Vialart as Bishop of Chdlons. While the first edition of the work contained only a few Jansenistic errors, its Jan- senistic tendency became more apparent in the sec- ond edition, and in its complete form, as it appeared in 1693, it was pervaded with practically all the errors of Jansenism. Several bishops forbade its reading in their dioceses, and Clement XI condemned it in his Brief, "Universi Dominici Gregis", dated 13 July, 1708. The papal Brief was, however, not accepted in France because its wording and its manner of pub- lication were not in harmony with the "Galilean Lib- erties". NoaiUes, who had become Archbishop of Paris and cardinal, was too proud to withdraw the approbation which he had inadvertently given to the book while Bishop of ChSlons, and Jansenism again raised its head. To put an end to this situation sev- eral bishops, and especially Louis XR', asked the pope to issue a Bull in place of the Brief which the French Government did not accept. The Bull was to avoid every expression contrary to the "GaUican Liberties" and to be submitted to the French Government be- fore publication. To avoid further scandal, the pope yielded to these humiliating conditions, and in Feb., 1712, appointed a special congregation of cardinals and theologians to cull from the work of CJuesnel such propositions as were deserving of ecclesiastical cen- sure. The most influential member of this congrega- tion was Cardinal Fabroni.
It took the congregation eighteen months to per- form its task, the result of which was the publication of the famous Bull "Unigenitus Dei Filius" at Rome, 8 Sept., 1713. The BuU begins with the warning of Christ against false prophets, especially such as "secretly spread evil doctrines under the guise of piety and introduce ruinous sects under the image of sanctity"; then it proceeds to the condemnation of 101 propositions which are taken verbatim from the last edition of (Juesnel's work. The propositions are coiideiinicd ri'siiectively as "false, captious, ill-sound- ing, offensive to jjious ears, scandalous, perniciovis, rash, injurious to the Church and its practices, con- tumelious to (^hureh and State, seditious, impious, blasi)heinous, suspected and savouring of heresy, fa- vouring heretics, heresy, and schism, erroneous, bor- dering on heresy, often condenmed, heretical, and reviving various heresies, especially those contained
