having "active" exemption may exercise a more extensive jurisdiction. They are (1) those who have certain episcopal rights over a clearly defined territory otherwise belonging to the diocese, and are known, canonically, as prælati nullius (i. e. diœceseos) cum territorio conjuncto; (2) those who have episcopal jurisdiction over a definite territory entirely distinct from the diocese, and known as prælati nullius cum territorio separato. The latter are prælati nullius in the proper sense; such, e. g. are the abbots of Monte Cassino, in Italy, and of St. Moritz, and Einsiedeln, in Switzerland. Prelates actively exempted have almost the same rights and privileges as a bishop. They may sit and vote in a general council, make laws within their proper territory, exercise canonical jurisdiction in matrimonial, disciplinary, and criminal matters. They may also grant faculties to hear confessions, reserve to themselves the right of absolving from certain sins, inflict ecclesiastical punishments and censures, grant faculties for preaching, make visitations within their jurisdiction, found an ecclesiastical seminary for priests, and appoint a vicar-general. Correspondingly, such a prelate must reside in his district, offer the Holy Sacrifice for the people, every Sunday and feast day, go at stated times to visit the Apostolic See (visitatio liminum Apostolorum), and attend the synod of the province, for which option has been declared. He is not, however, obliged to attend the diocesan synod. As a rule, such prelates are not consecrated bishops. They must consequently apply to some bishop of their own choice for the confirmation of their subjects, and for the consecration of the holy oils; for the ordination of their subjects, however, they must apply to the nearest bishop. When such prælati nullius are also regular abbots they may confer on their subjects the ecclesiastical tonsure, and ordain to the lower orders, or to this effect grant dimissorial letters to the diocesan bishop. Without papal privilege, however, they cannot make use of the pontifical insignia (pontificalia), nor perform acts of consecration reserved to bishops. Nor can they, without papal privilege, convene a diocesan synod, appoint synodal examiners, or hold examinations for appointment to parishes. Although regulars are, in all matters of substantial importance, exempted from jurisdiction, there remain a number of matters in which they are subject to episcopal control. Regulars living outside of their monastery are subject to the bishop as papal delegate (Conc. Trid. Sess. VI, De ref. ch. iii; Sess. XXV, De regul., ch. xiv). Besides the papal confirmation, the consent of the bishop is also necessary for the founding of a monastery (Conc. Trid. Sess. XXV, De regul. ch. iii). The bishop has the right to bless an abbot confirmed by the pope (Conc. Trid Sess. XXV, De regul. ch. vi). Monasteries of men are subject to episcopal visitation only in respect of parochial work (cura animarum) carried on by them outside of the monasteries (Conc. Trid. Sess. XXV, De regul., ch. xi). The bishop has the right to confer major orders on regulars, and to use the pontificalia in their churches. When the regulars have no special privilege the diocesan bishop consecrates their churches; and they must obtain episcopal permission for processions outside the immediate vicinity of such churches. They must also ask the episcopal blessing before they can preach (coram episcopo) in churches of the order, while, in order to preach in any other than their own churches, canonical authorization (missio canonica) must be obtained from the bishop (Conc. Trid. Sess. V, De ref. ch. ii). To hear the confessions of the laity, and to grant absolution in cases reserved to the bishop, regulars require episcopal approbation (Conc. Trid. Sess. XXIII, De ref. ch. xv). The writings and books of regulars must be submitted, before publication, to the diocesan censor for the place of issue (Leo XIII, "Officiorum ac munerum", 25 January, 1897, no 36). It is also obligatory, on members of orders, to observe the ordinances of the bishop respecting the Church feast days, church services, and processions (Conc. Trid. Sess. XXV, De regul., ch. xii, and ch. xiii). The rights of the bishop in respect to exempt orders of women are still more extensive. The bishop, or his representative (commissarius), presides at the election of abbesses, prioresses, or superiors (Conc. Trid. Sess. XXV, De regul. ch. vii). The right to visit canonically religious houses of women belongs to the bishop; he is charged in particular, with the entire superintendence of the observance of the clausura or cloister (Conc. Trid. Sess. XXV, De regul. ch. v). The bishop appoints the confessors, ordinary and extraordinary, for religious houses of women; in cases where such appointment belongs to some one else the bishop must, at least, give his approbation (Conc. Trid. Sess. XXV, De regul. ch. x). It is the bishop who examines into, either personally, or by representative, the voluntary character of the entrance of candidates into orders for women, both when they put on the habit of the order, and when they make their profession (Conc. Trid. Sess. XXV, De regul. ch. xvii). It is the bishop, finally, who audits the management of the property of female orders and religious houses. For exemption of ecclesiastics from secular jurisdiction see IMMUNITY. DE BUCK, De exemptione regularium conservanda (Brussels, 1869); SCHÄFLER, Der Bischof und die Regularen seiner Diözese (Augsburg, 1871); BLUMENSTOK, Der päpstliche Schutz im Miltelalter (Innsbruck, 1890); WEISS, Die kirchlichen Eremtionen der Klöster von ihrer Entstehung bis zur gregorianisch-kluniacensischen Zeit (Basle, 1893); HUFNER, Das Rechtsinstitut der klösterlichen Exemtion in der abendländischen Kirche (Mainz, 1903); LAURENTIUS, Institutiones Juris ecclesiastici (Freiburg im Br., 1908), 2nd ed., 180 sqq., 619 sqq. JOHANNES BAPTIST SÄGMÜLLER. Exequatur (synonymous with REGIUM PLACET), as the Jansenist Van Espen defines it, is a faculty which civil rulers impart to a Bull, papal Brief, or other ecclesiastical enactment in order to give it binding force in their respective territories. This faculty is conceded after ecclesiastical laws have been examined and found not derogatory to any right of the civil power and, therefore, suitable for promulgation. Modern statesmen draw a distinction between the Exequatur and the Regium Placet. The latter, according to them, is given to episcopal acts or acts of any other ecclesiastical superior belonging to the nation for which they are approved; while the former is conceded to enactments of a foreign power, that is, to papal Constitutions; the pope, as head of the whole Church, being formally considered as an authority not belonging to any particular country. In both cases, however, state authorities have the power of examining church laws and giving permission for their promulgation, by which permission ecclesiastical decrees acquire legal value and binding force. As to the origin of this supposed right of the State over the Church, it is now beyond doubt, contrary to the assertions of Gallicans and Jansenists, that no trace of it can be found in the early centuries of the Church, or even as late as the fourteenth century. It is true that during all that period of time General Councils, like those of Nicæa and Ephesus, requisitioned the sanction of State authorities for ecclesiastical laws; it was not, however, juridical, but only physical, force that was then invoked for ecclesiastical decrees, in order to enforce their execution by the secular arm. Moreover, had such a power in the State been at that time known, rulers of nations who were sometimes anxious to prevent the promulgation and execution of papal Constitutions in their domains would have readily appealed to it, instead of resorting to more difficult and troublesome means, in order to impede in every possible way papal letters from ever being introduced into their dominions, e. g. in the conflicts of Philip the Fair of France with Boniface VIII, and of Henry II of England with Alexander III. The Regium Placet really dates from the great Western Schism, which lasted from the pontificate of Urban VI to the Council of Constance and the election of Martin V (1378-1417). In order to guard against spurious papal letters issued by antipopes during the schism, Urban VI granted to some ecclesiastical superiors the faculty of examining papal Constitutions and ascertaining their authenticity before promulgation and execution. Civil authorities felt bound to adopt the same precautionary measure, though they did not attribute such a power to themselves as a right attached to their office; apparently its use was discontinued when, after the schism, Martin V condemned the Regium Placet in his Constitution "Quod antidota" (1418). In the fifteenth century, however, it was revived in Portugal by King John II and claimed by him as a right inherent in the crown. In the sixteenth century the Viceroy of Naples, the Duke of Alcalá, made it obligatory by law, and in the seventeenth century it was introduced into France in order to preserve the so-called Gallican Liberties, and afterwards into Spain, Belgium, Sicily, Naples, and other countries. In theory this supposed right of the State was first propounded and defended as a true doctrine by Luther, Pasquier Quesnel, and other heretics who denied the supreme jurisdiction of the pope; later on it was advocated by Gallicans and Jansenists, e. g. Van Espen, Febronius, De Marca, and Stockmans, who attributed this power to the State as a necessary means of self-defence against possible attempts of the Church to injure the rights of civil society. More recently it has been defended with particular vigour by Italian jurists and statesmen, e. g. Cavallari, Mancini, Piola, apropos particularly of the "Law of Guarantees" passed in 1871 by the Italian Government in favour of the Holy See. However, not only is it historically erroneous, as shown above, that such a right has been exercised from time immemorial, but it is also juridically false that such power naturally belongs to the State, particularly as a necessary means of self-defence. The injustice of that claim and the consequent usurpation of authority by the State appear manifest in the light of Catholic faith. If the binding force of church laws depended on the approval and consent of the State, it would no longer be true that the Church_received legislative power directly from her Divine Founder, and that whatever is bound or loosed by the Church on earth, will be bound or loosed in heaven (Matt., xvi, 19). Again, the Church would, in that case, immediately cease to be a supreme, self-sufficient, and perfect society, and would be deprived of her characteristics of unity, sanctity, catholicity, and apostolicity. Moreover, the use of the Exequatur to prevent possible usurpation of rights is contrary not only to Divine law but also to natural social law and is, therefore, an abuse of power, even if exercised by a State not professing the Catholic religion. A possible conflict of rights of two societies and the fear of a consequent injury to their respective jurisdiction do not entitle one of them to impede the free exercise of its ordinary jurisdiction by the other. Differences, if they arise, may be settled by private mutual understanding or arbitration. It is needless to say that the fear of any usurpation or conflict on the part of the Church is unfounded, as appears from her doctrine and history. The Church, as a matter of fact, never claimed the power of revising and approving civil laws before promulgation, although, indeed, past experience would justify her in fearing on the part of the State usurpation of her powers. She contents herself with condemning civil laws after promulgation, if they are injurious to Catholic interests. We need not wonder, then, that the Church has always condemned the doctrine and use of the Regium Placet. Boniface IX first condemned it in his Constitution "Intenta Sal utis" and after him a great number of pontiffs, down to Pius IX in Propositions 28 and 29 of the Syllabus "Quanta Cura" and in the Allocution "Luctuosis Exagitati" (12 March, 1877), also the Vatican Council in the Constitution "De Ecclesiâ Christi". To avert animosities and persecution, the Church has made minor concessions in favour of the State as to the exercise of the Regium Placet. In some other instances she has tolerated its acknowledgment by ecclesiastics, particularly to enable them to take possession of benefices and other temporalities. At present the Exequatur, or Regium Placet, is seldom, if ever, used, at least in its fullness, by modern civil rulers. In the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies it was abolished by the Concordat of 1818, and in Austria by that of 1855. It must likewise be regarded as abolished in Spain, France, Portugal, and Hungary. According to Aichner, it exists still, but in a mitigated form, in Saxony, Bavaria, and some parts of Switzerland. In Italy the strict Exequatur, i. e. previous to promulgation of papal Constitutions, is not in use, but it is retained in a mild form for the possession of ecclesiastical benefices. According to the "Law of Guarantees" (13 July, 1871), ecclesiastics who have been provided with benefices must present the Bull of their appointment to the State authorities; after approval the latter concede the Exequatur and put the incumbents of benefices in possession of the temporalities hitherto controlled by the government. In this form the Exequatur is at present tolerated by the Church, though it is not devoid of inconveniences, as Leo XIII complained in a letter written to his Secretary of State Cardinal Nina (27 August, 1878). BOIX, De principiis juris (Paris, 1788); ZACCARIA, Comandi VAN ESPEN, De promulgatione legum eccl. (Louvain, 1729); chi può obbedisca chi deve (Faenza, 1788); CAVAGNIS, Jur. Publ. Eccl. Instit. (Rome, 1906); BARBA, Il Diritto Publ. Eccl. (Naples, 1900); TARQUINI, Dissert. de Regio Placet (Rome, 1862); DE DOMINICIS, Il Regio Exequatur (Naples, 1869). S. LUZIO. Exercises, SPIRITUAL. See SPIRITUAL EXERCISES OF SAINT IGNATIUS. Exeter (EXONIA, ISCA DAMNONIORUM, CAER WISE, EXANCEASTER), ANCIENT DIOCESE OF (EXONIENSIS), in England, chosen by Leofric, Bishop of Crediton, as his cathedral city in 1050. Originally Devonshire formed part of the Diocese of Wessex. About 703 Devonshire and Cornwall became the separate Bishopric of Sherborne and in 900 this was divided into two, the Devonshire bishop having his cathedral at Crediton. The two dioceses were again united when Leofric became first Bishop of Exeter. The present cathedral was begun by Bishop William de Warelhurst in 1112; the abbey church of St. Mary and St. Peter, founded by Athelstan in 932 and rebuilt in 1019, serving till then as the cathedral church. The transept towers built by Warelhurst still remain, being the only part of the Norman cathedral existing. This Norman building was completed by Bishop Marshall at the close of the twelfth century. The cathedral as it now stands is in the decorated style, being begun by Bishop Quivil (1280–1291), continued by Bytton and Stapeldon, and completed by the great Bishop Grandisson during his long pontificate of forty-two years, who left it much as it now stands. In many respects it resembles the French cathedrals rather than those of England. The special features of the cathedral are the transeptal towers and the choir. The latter contains much early stained-glass and a magnificent episcopal throne, and is separated from the nave by a choir-screen of singular beauty (1324). The absence of a central tower and a general lack of elevation prevent the building from ranking among the greatest English cathedrals, though the stately west front is alone sufficient to render it remarkable. The bishops of Exeter always enjoyed considerable independence and the see was one of the largest and richest in England. "The Bishop of Exeter," writes Professor Freeman, "like the Archbishop of York was the spiritual head of a separate people." The remoteness of the see from London prevented it from being bestowed on statesmen or courtiers, so that the roll of bishops is more distinguished for scholars and administrators than for men who played a large part in national affairs. This was fortunate for the diocese and gave it a long line of excellent bishops, one of whom, Edmund Lacy, died with a reputation for sanctity and the working of miracles (1455). The result of this was seen in the fidelity with which Devonshire and Cornwall adhered to the Catholic Faith at the time of the Reformation. The following are the bishops with the dates of their accession:Leofric, 1046 Osbern, 1072 William Warelwast, 1107 Robert Chichester, 1138 Robert Warelwast, 1155 Bartholomew Iscanus, 1161 John the Chaunter, 1186 Peter Quivil, 1280 James Berkeley, 1326 Edmund Stafford, 1395 1559 The diocese, originally very wealthy, was plundered during the reign of Henry VIII, when Bishop Vesey was forced to surrender fourteen out of twenty-two manors, and the value of the bishopric was reduced to a third. Vesey, though a Catholic at heart, held the see until 1551, when he was made to resign, and the Reformer, Miles Coverdale, was intruded into the see, where he made himself most unpopular. On the accession of Mary, in 1553, Vesey was restored. He died in 1554 and was succeeded by James Turberville, beloved by Catholics and Protestants alike. He was deprived of the see by Elizabeth in 1559 and died in prison, probably in or about 1570, the last Catholic Bishop of Exeter. The diocese contained four archdeaconries, Cornwall, Barnstaple, Exeter, and Totton, and six hundred and four parishes. There were Benedictine, Augustinian, Franciscan, Dominican, and Norbertine houses, and four Cistercian abbeys. The cathedral was dedicated to St. Peter, and the arms of the see were: Gules, a sword in pale blade and hilt proper, two keys in saltire or. LYTTLETON, Some remarks on the original foundation of Exeter Cathedral (1754); ENGLEFIELD, Observations on Bishop Lyttleton's account of Exeter Cathedral (London, 1796); ANON, Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus Provincialis (Exeter, 1782); BRITTON, Historyand Antiquities of the Cathedral Church of Exeter (London, 1836); BREWER, Hist. and Antiq. of the Cath. Ch. of Exeter (London, s. d.); BOGGIS, Exeter Cathedral (Exeter, s. d.); HEWETT, History of the Cathedral Church of Exeter (Exeter, 1848); OLIVER, Lives of the bishops of Exeter and history of the Cathedral (Exeter, 1861), also Monasticon Diocesis Exoniensis, records illustrating the ancient conventual foundations (Exeter, 1846); CARTER, Some account of the Cathedral Church of Exeter (London, 1879); SHELLY, History of the Chap ter of Exeter (Plymouth, 1881); HINGESTON-RANDOLPH, Episcopal Registers: Diocese of Exeter, 1257-1419, 6 vols. (London, 1889-1896); REYNOLDS, Use of Exeter Cathedral according to John de Grandisson (London, 1891); FREEMAN, Architectural History of Exeter Cathedral (Exeter, s. d.); REYNOLDS, Short = Exorcism is (1) the act of driving out, or warding off, demons, or evil spirits, from persons, places, or things, which are, or are believed to be, possessed or infested by them, or are liable to become victims or instruments of their malice; (2) the means employed for this purpose, especially the solemn and authoritative adjuration of the demon, in the name of God, or of any higher power to which he is subject. The word, which is not itself biblical, is derived from opklyw, which is used in the Septuagint (Gen. xxiv, 3 cause to swear; III (I) Kings xxii, 16 = adjure) and in Matt. xxvi, 63, by the high priest to Christ, "I adjure thee by the living God. The non-intensive oρkisw and the noun oрKIσтhs (exorcist) occur in Acts xix, 13, where the latter (in the plural) is applied to certain strolling Jews who professed to be able to cast out demons. Expulsion by adjuration is, therefore, the primary meaning of exorcism, and when, as in Christian usage, this adjuration is in the name of God or of Christ, exorcism is a strictly religious act or rite. But in ethnic religions, and even among the Jews from the time when there is evidence of its being in vogue, exorcism as an act of religion is largely replaced by the use of mere magical and superstitious means, to which non-Catholic writers at the present day sometimes quite unfairly assimilate Christian exorcism. Superstition ought not to be confounded with religion, however much their history may be interwoven, nor magic, however white it may be, with a legitimate religious rite. IN ETHNIC RELIGIONS: The use of protective means against the real, or supposed, molestations of evil spirits naturally follows from belief in their existence, and is, and has been always, a feature of ethnic religions, savage and civilized. In this connexion only two of the religions of antiquity, the Egyptian and the Babylonian, call for notice; but it is no easy task, even in the case of these two, to isolate what bears strictly on our subject, from the mass of mere magic in which it is embedded. The Egyptians ascribed certain diseases and various other evils to demons, and believed in the efficacy of magical charms and incantations for banishing or dispelling them. The dead more particularly needed to be well fortified with magic in order to be able to accomplish in safety their perilous journey to the underworld (see Budge, Egyptian Magic, London, 1899). But of exorcism, in the strict sense, there is hardly any trace in the Egyptian records. In the famous case where a demon was expelled from the daughter of the Prince of Bekhten, human ministry was unavailing, and the god Khonsu himself had to be sent the whole way from Thebes for the purpose. The demon gracefully retired when confronted with the god, and was allowed by the latter to be treated to a grand banquet before departing "to his own place" (op. cit. p. 206 sq.). Babylonian magic was largely bound up with medicine, certain diseases being attributed to some kind of demoniacal possession, and exorcism being considered the easiest, if not the only, way of curing them (Sayce, Hibbert Lect. 1887, 310). For this purpose certain formulæ of adjuration were employed, in which some god or goddess, or some group of deities, was invoked to conjure away the evil one and repair the mischief he had caused. The following example (from Sayce, op. cit., History of the Ancient Diocese of Exeter, with calendar of Episco- 441 seq.) may be quoted: "The (possessing) demon pal registers and of MSS. belonging to dean and chapter; (Exeter, 1895); EDWARDS, Exeter Cathedral (London, 1897); ADDLESHAW, Exeter: the Cathedral and See (London, 1898). EDWIN BURTON. Existence. See ESSENCE AND EXISTENCE. Exodus, the second Book of the Pentateuch, second also of the whole Old Testament Canon (see PENTA TEUCH). which seizes a man, the demon (ekimmu) which seizes a man; The (seizing) demon which works mischief, the evil demon, Conjure, O spirit of heaven; conjure, O spirit of earth.' For further examples see King, Babylonian Magic and Sorcery (London, 1896). In AMONG THE JEWS: There is no instance in the Old Testament of demons being expelled by men. Tobias, viii, 3, it is the angel who "took the devil |