niemad inhlution„20,HALIVotum: 72}accidens Apofolica Referuatio fuperuenit, pro-inde extendi non debere ad ſubrogatamPœnitentiam. Quid ni ergo& in cafu no-ftro Idem valeat? Denique cum vnius eti-am Doctoris docti& pij ſententia, DianæP:.17.4, Ref. 30.&G alijs Recentioribus ſuf-ficiat ad conſtituendam opinionem proba-bilem,& in Praxi tutam: Præter P, Cypr,idem tenent P. Leander à Murcia jn Regul,S..N. Franc. c,.q. 8.§.2,.56,& Paſqual.q1. Canon, Gentur...1. 2b ipfo Dian. I. cc,relati,& vt apparet ex frequente eorum al-legatione non parum probati., Quibus ad-de P. Baff. vhi fupra,& P. Chaffain, de Priu.Reg. tr. S, c. 5. Prop. 2. cŪalijs ab eodem al-legatis, Vetuſtioribus prælertim, qui anteSanch. more Pontificũ loquentes nihil hu-ius diſtinctionis meminerunt. Vide inſuperCaram, in Theol. fund. fund, 13..365. È 367,Ó Aluifet. de Priuil Reg f3 6... 2..1LQui de tota hac materia plura velit, con-fulat Portel,& P. Baſſæ in vtrog, Tomo.Vo-tum prælertim verò Sanch. L. 4. Moral, nonminùs exactè quàm fusè trađĝantem, quemtecentioresvt plurimum fequi folent,Porrò Priuilegia hæc diſpenſandi velcom mutandi, reſtringenda nõ ſuut ad ſub-ditos cantùm illius Diæcefis, in qua Con-feor eft approbatus,[ed omninò extendiZz Aaa Bbbs debent
