‘Ex quibus apparet’, inquit, ‘quam suspecta sit sententia eorum, quos supra retulimus, existimantium Genuenses, aut etiam Venetos posse non iniuria prohibere alios navigare per Gulfum aut pelagus sui maris, quasi aequora ipsa praescripserint, id quod non solum est contra leges,[135a] sed etiam est contra ipsum ius naturae, aut gentium primaevum, quod mutari non posse diximus. Quod sit contra illud ius constat, quia non solum maria aut aequora eo iure communia erant sed etiam reliquae omnes res immobiles. Et licet ab eo iure postea recessum fuerit ex parte, puta quoad dominium et proprietatem terrarum, quarum dominium iure Naturae commune, distinctum et divisum, sicque ab illa communione segregatum fuit; tamen[136a] diversum fuit et est in dominio maris, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - For, since the law of nature arises out of Divine Providence, it is immutable; but a part of this natural law is the primary or primitive law of nations, differing from the secondary or positive law of nations, which is mutable. For if there are customs incompatible with the primary law of nations, then, according to the judgment of Vasquez, they are not customs belonging to men, but to wild beasts, customs which are corruptions and abuses; not laws and usages. Therefore those customs cannot become prescriptions by mere lapse of time, cannot be justified by the passage of any law, cannot be established by the consent, the protection, or the practice even of many nations. These statements he confirms by a number of examples, and particularly by the testimony of Alphonse de Castro[134] the Spanish theologian. ‘It is evident therefore’, he says, ‘how much to be suspected is the opinion of those persons mentioned above, who think that the Genoese or the Venetians can without injustice prohibit other nations from navigating the gulfs or bays of their respective seas, as if they had a prescriptive right to the very water itself. Such an act is not only contrary to the laws,[135] but is contrary also to natural law or the primary law of nations, which we have said is immutable. And this is seen to be true because by that same law not only the seas or waters, but also all other immovables were _res communes_. And although in later times there was a partial abandonment of that law, in so far as concerns sovereignty and ownership of lands--which by natural law at first were held in common, then distinguished and divided, and thus finally separated from the primitive community of use;--nevertheless[136] it was different as regards sovereignty over the sea, which from the beginning of the world down to this - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - quod ab origine Mundi, ad hodiernum usque diem est, fuitque semper in communi, nulla ex parte immutatum, ut est notum’.