Although he compared children’s minds to water which we can easily turn this way or that, or to wax upon which we can impress any figure as we like, yet he meant to illustrate by this simply the extreme plasticity and flexibility of childhood. He was not blind to the great individual differences, and was perfectly aware that “there are possibly scarce two children who can be conducted by exactly the same method” (7: p. 187). Moreover, he says: “We must not hope wholly to change their original tempers, nor make the gay pensive and grave, nor the melancholy sportive, without spoiling them; God has stamped certain characters upon men’s minds which, like their shapes, may perhaps be a little mended, but can hardly be totally alter’d and transformed into the contrary” (7: p. 40). The uniformatization of method, then, is a crime of educational art instead of its aim. The only common rule to be fixed is not to have any definite rule, but to find out about every child, what his temperament, inclinations, defects are, and apply methods or treatment that are “adapted to his capacity” and “suited to his natural genius and constitution.” In discussing the process of discipline, he first makes a plea for the free expression of the play instinct. “This gamesome humour,” he says, “which is wisely adapted by Nature to their age and temper should rather be encourag’d to keep up their spirits, and improve strength and health, than curb’d or restrain’d” (7: p. 38). A “misapply’d and useless correction” in this case may serve “only to spoil the temper both of body and of mind.” Our hope of education will be gone if we kill this tendency to spontaneous activity at its growth. For here is just the point of grasp by which alone we can lead children anywhere we desire. “The chief art of the educator is to make all that they have to do sport and play, too.” (7: p. 38). Shall we then put no restraint whatever upon their conduct? No, far from that. Locke insists that even “the plays and diversions of children should be directed towards good and useful habits or else they will introduce ill ones” (7: p. 113). He demands a stern and rigorous discipline, and accuses parents of weakening their little ones by too much fondling. Children ought not to be allowed to satisfy a craving which comes from their whims and fancies and not from their natural wants. They ought to learn the control of their passions and appetites from their cradles, and so be kept in absolute subjection to the parents’ authority while their own reason is not yet developed. Their instinctive sense of awe should be utilized and obedience be made implicit and natural. But as they grow up, more liberty should be allowed, and friendliness, love, and even respect should take the place of authority.