Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	child_n	father_n	mother_n	5,111	5	7.8086	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A49439	An answer to Mr. Hobbs his Leviathan with observations, censures, and confutations of divers errours, beginning at the seventeenth chapter of that book / by William Lucy ...	Lucy, William, 1594-1677.	1673 (1673)	Wing L3452; ESTC R4448	190,791	291

thing without the Sword in a Magistrates hand to make it good So then the Sword rules every man in that state before a Commonwealth is instituted may lawfully relye upon his own strength or art for caution So that although the word be out in that state and the Contract made yet if the Husband or the Wife can find strength or art to avoid it they may lawfully use it and to defraud and force each other to the breach of this Covenant is lawful So that according to his principles there is no considerable strength in the state of Nature to keep a●y to their promises but according to min● it is not so who am assured that th●se lawful Contracts made on earth are sealed in heaven and the God of truth so loves truth that he approves it in all conditions of men and therefore these bargains ought to be observed unless it may happen out that they are contrary to the Divine Law as that a man should divest himself of all his Oeconomical right which God hath placed in him and the woman by such power should usurp a Superiority when God hath commanded her to be subject So that a man may as I think absolutely conclude where there is no Common-wealth a veracity is exacted by God in such contracts which are not against some Divine Law where there is a Common-wealth these bargains are confirmed as are not contrary to their Civil Laws SECT VII Mr. Hobbs his example of the Amazons further shewed to be impertinent HE proceeds and gives an instance We find saith he in History that the Amazons contracted with the men of Neighbouring Countries to whom they had recourse for Issues that the Issue Male should be sent back but the Female remain with themselves so that the Dominion of the Females was in the Mother Here is an instance from a Lawless Conjunction where man and woman meet together like beasts to enjoy that carnal familiarity but not like rational creatures to cohabit together in an Oeconomical Discipline Amongst them there were only the first names Man and Woman not Husband and Wife which began our discourse It is of Women renouncing mens society who neither themselves nor their children lived in the same Nation nor under the same Government with these whom they did converse with and so if they had kept the Male-child the father could no ways come to lay claim to it or any thing in the Amazonian Country And yet consider once more how weak and inconsistent his discourse is which contradicteth it self in almost every page He discoursed of men in meer nature just before and presently after as his words are which men which are without all union in a Commonwealth and here in the middle of his discourse he gives his instance for proof of his Conclusion from the conversation of the Amazonians with their Neighbouring Countries both which were incorporated into several Commonwealths For it is evident from what is written of the Amazonians in Histories that their Commonwealth had many distinct Laws and Customes from other Nations if there were any such But let us go on with him SECT VIII His supposition of the state of Nature without Matrimony censured His reasons refuted The Father of the Family hath dominion of the Child born out of Matrimony HE enters now upon the second part of his distinction If there be no Contract saith he the dominion is in the Mother For in the condition of meer nature where there are no Matrimonial Laws it cannot be known who is the Father unless it be declared by the Mother and therefore the right of dominion over the child dependeth upon the will of the Mother and is consequently hers Here you find the state of nature again where are no Matrimonial Laws But stay there was never such a time or place for God gave the Law of the Wives subjection to her Husband in Paradise Gen. ● 16. of which I have formerly treated It was the first Law he gave after their eating the forbidden fruit therefore there was no such time or state of men in which there was no Law concerning Matrimony But if he understand by this word Law only Humane Politick Laws he receives his answer that where no Politick Laws restrain it there most abundantly Divine Laws are without controul But he hath reason for what he writes Because no man can tell who is Father of the child but the Mother on●y therefore he is at her dispose I would ask whether the child was born in Marriage or no if so then the child is his fathers and he is bound to maintain him but if not he is Filius Populi unless the Woman produce the Father and the people must father it and provide for it But he will answer in the meer s●ate of nature without Politick Sanctions there is no Marriage I reply there was never such a state but there were some forms by which men accepted their Wives into that union or if no Laws yet custom and constant usage grew into a Law and they were thus appropriated one to the other But suppose the Infant he speaks of were born without any such conjunction the Woman either lived in her Fathers house or was her self alone Mistress of a family If the first she and the Child were at the Fathers dispose if the second and the Father unknown he is hers only But he and I might have spared the troubling a Reader with this discourse in this question for the question was raised about man and wife in the same family who should govern the child not about such spurious Generations where the man and woman live in distinct families He urgeth further Again saith he seeing the Infant is first in the Mothers power so as she may either nourish ●r expose it if she nourish it it oweth its life to the Mother and is therefore obliged to obey her rather then any other and by consequence the dominion over it is hers Let us first examine this little Particle First that must be understood of the first instant of the childs birth because that gives him his first being in the world But then is not the same power in the Midwife who may either stif●e the child or preserve it And then an equal share of duty from this reason will be owing to her as well as the Mother Then consider that phrase if she nourish it what is that give it suck But suppose she doth neither expose it nor give it suck by reason of some infirmity or weakness which she hath but put it out to Nurse shall the Nurse have any interest in the dominion over the child I but he may answer that this must be by the Mothers providence and then she is Author of that childs preservation No say I but the Father who must either direct or at the least willingly permit the Mother to do it for the Mother being under the Fathers dominion she cannot act any considerable matter either

to her self or for her child without the Fathers leave SECT IX No Law impowring the woman to expose her child The Law of Nature favourable to Infants Power or ability cannot give the character of Justice to unjust actions The consequences of Mr. Hobbs his conclusions discovered and the contrary asserted The Mother gets no dominion over the Child by not exposing it NExt let us consider what power the Mother hath to expose her child Id potest quod jure potest she hath no power but by some Law which gives her that power I am confident he cannot find any National Law which gives the Woman authority to act any such thing or if he could what would it avail him because he disputes of such who are not imbodied into a Commonwealth much less can he pretend to the Law of Nature which dictates nothing more clearly then the Love of Parents to their children I but he will say she hath power that is she is able to do it If such a malicious disposition were discovered the Husband hath power to restrain it But suppose such a horrid wickedness may be in the Woman and a power yea an opportunity of acting it doth she gain dominion because she doth it not by that reason Wives may have dominion over their Husbands Children over their Parents Servants over their Masters Subjects over their Kings for all these have or may have power though no right to murder or slay the other which is very odious to the consideration of any man who thinks upon either Oeconomicks or Politicks nay there is none of those more abhorring to nature then the Mothers exposing her child I therefore conclude against that member of his distinction that although a Mother may be so impious as to expose her child yet because she hath no right to do it she gains no right of dominion by not doing it SECT X. Mr. Hobbs his deviation from the matter proposed Children exposed and nourished by others owe not filial duties to them that nourish them preservation not so great a benefit as being Romulus his respect to them that nourished him not filial duty but gratitude and kindness HE proceeds upon that supposal But if she expose it and another find and nourish it the dominion is in him that nourisheth it First good Reader consider with me what this is to his purpose The question raised was betwixt the Father and Mother of a Family who should have the dominion over their child now it is betwixt the Mother who brought a child into the world and a stranger who nourisheth it If the Wife have it as I have shewed the Husband hath it because he hath dominion over the Wife therefore of whatsoever likewise is subject to her dominion Now he produceth an instance where neither hath it Then saith he the dominion is in him that nourisheth it I shall answer it If there be such Monsters who for fear or for that Tyrant daughter of fear shame shall expose their child as sure there are without doubt they do as much as in them lies put off all their Parental interest and devest themselves of all filial duties belonging to them and it is as undoubted a truth that for that time which they are so nourished and relieved yea indeed all the daies of their life they owe and ought to pay great kindness and respect to such deliverers though not filial because the benefit is exceeding great which they have received from the● Patrons but not so great as from their Fathers for the Parent gives him his very being the other but his preservation Now as the being of man or any thing is the fountain of all the good which can come to that man so must the gift of that exceed all other else his Physitian may be his Father his Cook or his Apothecary which conduce to his preservation But suppose he should be exposed not by his Parents but by any other means as Romulus although preserved and educated by Faustulus and Lupa and owed them a mighty kindness for that preservation yet this kindness when he came to be a man ceased to be filial duty towards them such as was due if proceeding from a Paternal dominion over him and rather became a great kindness and benignity towards them SECT XI Mr. Hobbs his reasons of the former assertions weighed and refuted Obedience where it crosses first due to the Parent The weaknese of Mr. Hobbs's inferences noted H●s conclusion censured Oecominical Laws must be submitted to National HE adds For it ought to obey him by whom it is preserved because preservation of life being the end for which one becomes subject to another every man is supposed to promise obedience to him in wh●se power it is to save or destroy him I answer preservation as the Philosopher speaks is continu●t●● creati●●r generatio so that the very being of any thing is the substance which is preserved and that must needs be more excellent then such an acci●ent as preservation It is true a ch●ld ought to obey him who hath nourished him but not in such a degree as to a Parental relation when that obedience shall cross the obedience to the Parents Preservation of life is the end saith he for which one man becomes subject unto another But consider what preservation that is with that which is to come upon this ground the unvanquished man submits himself to the Conquerour that he may protect his future being and preserve him from future danger but this subjection is not to him who hath preserved him but to him who will preserve him or if this subjection be due yet not such nor contrary to that of his Parents But I must not tire my self nor my Reader with such needless discourses upon errors which fall of themselves without any dispute only entreat the Reader in perusing them to consider his inferences how they depend one upon another and that will be light enough to shew him the weakness of them He goes on If the M●ther be the Fathers subject the Child is in the Fathers power c. It is not worth the transcribing he now runs from Parents barely under the Law of Nature to such as are in setled Common-wealths to all which one answer will serve that they must be according to the National and peculiar Laws belonging to that Commonwealth for Oeconomical Laws must submit to National The next learned note of his is He that hath dominion over the Child hath dominion also over the children of that Chi●d I must confess a most true and excellent observation and such as he will hear of hereafter and so I let it pass for this present The next conclusion he enters upon is the right of succession to Paternal dominion which he saith proceedeth in the same manner as doth the right of succession to Monarchy of which he had spoke in the precedent Chapter I will dispute nothing about this The Customes and Laws of every Nation