_Neither the Sea nor the right of navigation thereon belongs to the
Portuguese by virtue of title based on the Papal Donation_
The Donation of Pope Alexander, inasmuch as the title based on
discovery is seen to be deficient, may next be invoked by the
Portuguese to justify their exclusive appropriation of the sea
and the right of navigation thereon. But from what has been said
above, that Donation is clearly convicted of being an act of empty
ostentation. For a Donation has no effect on things outside the
realm of trade. Wherefore since neither the sea nor the right of
navigating it can become the private property of any man, it follows
that it could not have been given by the Pope, nor accepted by
the Portuguese. Besides, as has been mentioned above, following
the opinion of all men of sound judgment, it is sufficiently well
recognized that the Pope is not the temporal lord of the earth, and
certainly not of the sea. Even if it be granted for the sake of
argument that such were the case, still a right attaching to the
Pontificate ought not to be transferred wholly or in part to any king
or nation. Similarly no emperor could convert to his own uses or
alienate at his own pleasure the provinces of his empire.[112]
Now, inasmuch as no one concedes to the Pope in temporal matters a
_jus disponendi_, except perhaps in so far as it is demanded by the
necessity of spiritual matters, and inasmuch as the things now under
discussion, namely, the sea and the right of navigating it, are
concerned only with money and profits, not with piety, surely no one
can have
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
respiciant, sequi nullam hac in re fuisse illius potestatem. Quid,
quod ne Principes quidem, hoc est, domini temporales possunt ullo
modo a navigatione aliquem prohibere, cum si quod habent ius in mari
id sit tantum iurisdictionis ac protectionis? Etiam illud notissimum
est apud omnes, ad ea facienda quae cum lege Naturae pugnant, nullam
esse Papae auctoritatem.[113a] Pugnat autem cum lege Naturae, ut
mare aut eius usum quisquam habeat sibi proprium, ut iam satis
demonstravimus. Cum denique ius suum auferre alicui Papa minime
possit, quae erit facti istius defensio, si tot populos immerentes,
indemnatos, innoxios ab eo iure quod ad ipsos non minus quam ad
Hispanos pertinebat uno verbo voluit excludere?
Aut igitur dicendum est nullam esse vim eiusmodi pronuntiationis,
aut quod non minus credibile est, eum Pontificis animum fuisse, ut
Castellanorum et Lusitanorum inter se certamini intercessum voluerit,
aliorum autem iuri nihil diminutum.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
the face to insist that the Pope had any jurisdiction here. What of
the fact that not even rulers, that is to say, temporal lords, can
prohibit any one from navigation, since if they have any right at all
upon the sea it is merely one of jurisdiction and protection! It is
also a fact universally recognized that the Pope has no authority to
commit acts repugnant to the law of nature.[113] But it is repugnant
to the law of nature, as we have already proved beyond a doubt, for
any one to have as his own private property either the sea or its
use. Finally, since the Pope is wholly unable to deprive any one of
his own rights, what defense will there be for that Donation of his,
if by a word he intended to exclude so many innocent, uncondemned,
and guiltless nations from a right which belongs no less to them than
to the Spaniards?
Therefore, either it must be affirmed that a pronunciamento of this
sort has no force, or, as is no less credible, that it was the desire
of the Pope to intercede in the quarrel between the Spaniards and the
Portuguese, and that he had no concomitant intention of violating the
rights of others.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CAPVT VII
_Mare aut ius navigandi proprium non esse Lusitanorum titulo
praescriptionis aut consuetudinis_
Vltimum iniquitatis patrocinium in praescriptione solet esse aut
consuetudine. Et huc igitur Lusitani se conferunt; sed utrumque
illis praesidium certissima iuris ratio praecludit. Nam praescriptio
a iure est civili, unde locum habere non potest inter reges, aut
inter populos liberos;[114a] multo autem minus ubi ius naturae aut
gentium resistit, quod iure civili semper validius est. Quin et ipsa
lex civilis praescriptionem hic impedit.[115a] Vsucapi enim, aut
praescriptione acquiri prohibentur, quae in bonis esse non possunt,
deinde quae possideri vel quasi possideri nequeunt, et quorum
alienatio prohibita est. Haec autem omnia de mari et usu maris vere
dicuntur.
Et cum publicae res, hoc est populi alicuius nulla temporis
possessione quaeri posse dicantur, sive ob rei naturam, sive ob
eorum privilegium adversus quos praescriptio ista procederet, quanto
iustius humano generi, quam uni populo id beneficium dandum fuit in
rebus communibus? Et hoc est
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -