The exposed infant is his that preserves him.
4. The dominion passes from the mother to others, divers ways. First, if she quit and forsake her right by exposing the child. He therefore that shall bring up the child thus exposed, shall have the same dominion over it which the mother had. For that life which the mother had given it, (not by getting but nourishing it), she now by exposing takes from it. Wherefore the obligation also which arose from the benefit of life, is by this exposition made void. Now the preserved oweth all to the preserver, whether in regard of his education as to a mother, or of his service as to a lord. For although the mother in the state of nature, where all men have a right to all things, may recover her son again, namely, by the same right that anybody else might do it; yet may not the son rightly transfer himself again unto his mother.
The son of a subject and chief, is his that commands.
5. Secondly, if the mother be taken prisoner, her son is his that took her; because that he who hath dominion over the person, hath also dominion over all belonging to the person; wherefore over the son also, as hath been shewed in the foregoing chapter, in the [fifth article]. Thirdly, if the mother be a subject under what government soever, he that hath the supreme authority in that government, will also have the dominion over him that is born of her; for he is lord also of the mother, who is bound to obey him in all things. Fourthly, if a woman for society’s sake give herself to a man on this condition, that he shall bear the sway; he that receives his being from the contribution of both parties, is the father’s, in regard of the command he hath over the mother. But if a woman bearing rule shall have children by a subject, the children are the mother’s; for otherwise the woman can have no children without prejudice to her authority. And universally, if the society of the male and female be such an union, as the one have subjected himself to the other, the children belong to him or her that commands.
In such a conjunction of male and female, as neither hath the commanding power over the other, the children are the mother’s; except by pact or civil law it be otherwise determined.
6. But in the state of nature, if a man and woman contract so, as neither is subject to the command of the other, the children are the mother’s, for the reasons above given in the [third article], unless by pacts it be otherwise provided. For the mother may by pact dispose of her right as she lists; as heretofore hath been done by the Amazons, who of those children which have been begotten by their neighbours, have by pact allowed them the males, and retained females to themselves. But in a civil government, if there be a contract of marriage between a man and woman, the children are the father’s; because in all cities, to wit, constituted of fathers, not mothers governing their families, the domestical command belongs to the man; and such a contract, if it be made according to the civil laws, is called matrimony. But if they agree only to lie together, the children are the father’s or the mother’s variously, according to the differing civil laws of divers cities.
Children are no less subject to their parents, than servants to their lords, and subjects to their city.
7. Now because, by the [third article], the mother is originally lord of her children, and from her the father, or somebody else by derived right; it is manifest that the children are no less subject to those by whom they are nourished and brought up, than servants to their lords, and subjects to him who bears the supreme rule; and that a parent cannot be injurious to his son, as long as he is under his power. A son also is freed from subjection in the same manner as a subject and servant are. For emancipation is the same thing with manumission, and abdication with banishment.
Of the honour due to parents and lords.
8. The enfranchised son or released servant, do now stand in less fear of their lord and father, being deprived of his natural and lordly power over them; and, if regard be had to true and inward honour, do honour him less than before. For honour, as hath been said in the [section above], is nothing else but the estimation of another’s power; and therefore he that hath least power, hath always least honour. But it is not to be imagined, that the enfranchiser ever intended so to match the enfranchised with himself, as that he should not so much as acknowledge a benefit, but should so carry himself in all things as if he were become wholly his equal. It must therefore be ever understood, that he who is freed from subjection, whether he be a servant, son, or some colony, doth promise all those external signs at least, whereby superiors used to be honoured by their inferiors. From whence it follows, that the precept of honouring our parents, belongs to the law of nature, not only under the title of gratitude, but also of agreement.