be contradictory, or checks and allays only, or incentives and
assistants to each other. And principles, which in their nature
have no kind of contrariety or affinity, may yet accidentally be
each other's allays or incentives.

From hence it comes to pass, that though we were able to look into
the inward contexture of the heart, and see with the greatest
exactness in what degree any one principle is in a particular man,
we could not from thence determine how far that principle would go
towards forming the character, or what influence it would have upon
the actions, unless we could likewise discern what other principles
prevailed in him, and see the proportion which that one bears to the
others. Thus, though two men should have the affection of
compassion in the same degree exactly, yet one may have the
principle of resentment or of ambition so strong in him as to
prevail over that of compassion, and prevent its having any
influence upon his actions, so that he may deserve the character of
a hard or cruel man, whereas the other having compassion in just the
same degree only, yet having resentment or ambition in a lower
degree, his compassion may prevail over them, so as to influence his
actions, and to denominate his temper compassionate. So that, how
strange soever it may appear to people who do not attend to the
thing, yet it is quite manifest that, when we say one man is more
resenting or compassionate than another, this does not necessarily
imply that one has the principle of resentment or of compassion
stronger than the other. For if the proportion which resentment or
compassion bears to other inward principles is greater in one than
in the other, this is itself sufficient to denominate one more
resenting or compassionate than the other.