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_. [Sidenote: 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_. [Sidenote: Wherein liberty doth consist; and the difference between subjects and servants.]