3. If therefore she breed him, because the state of nature is the state of war, she is supposed to bring him up on this condition; that being grown to full age he become not her enemy; which is, that he obey her. For since by natural necessity we all desire that which appears good unto us, it cannot be understood that any man hath on such terms afforded life to another, that he might both get strength by his years, and at once become an enemy. But each man is an enemy to that other, whom he neither obeys nor commands. And thus in the state of nature, every woman that bears children, becomes both a _mother_ and a _lord_. But what some say, that in this case the _father_, by reason of the pre-eminence of sex, and not the _mother_ becomes _lord_, signifies nothing. For both reason shows the contrary; because the inequality of their natural forces is not so great, that the man could get the dominion over the woman without war. And custom also contradicts not; for women, namely Amazons, have in former times waged war against their adversaries, and disposed of their children at their own wills. And at this day, in divers places women are invested with the principal authority; neither do their husbands dispose of their children, but themselves; which in truth they do _by the right of nature_; forasmuch as they who have the supreme power, are not tied at all (as hath been shewed) to the civil laws. Add also, that in the state of nature it cannot be known who is the _father_, but by the testimony of the _mother_; the child therefore is his whose the mother will have it, and therefore her’s. Wherefore original dominion over _children_ belongs to the _mother_: and among men no less than other creatures, the birth follows the belly. [Sidenote: 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. [Sidenote: The son of a subject and chief, is his that commands.]