we may have a clear conception of the SUPERIOR NATURE of one inward
principle to another, and see that there really is this natural
superiority, quite distinct from degrees of strength and prevalency.

Let us now take a view of the nature of man, as consisting partly of
various appetites, passions, affections, and partly of the principle
of reflection or conscience, leaving quite out all consideration of
the different degrees of strength in which either of them prevails,
and it will further appear that there is this natural superiority of
one inward principle to another, and that it is even part of the
idea of reflection or conscience.

Passion or appetite implies a direct simple tendency towards such
and such objects, without distinction of the means by which they are
to be obtained. Consequently it will often happen there will be a
desire of particular objects, in cases where they cannot be obtained
without manifest injury to others. Reflection or conscience comes
in, need disapproves the pursuit of them in these circumstances; but
the desire remains. Which is to be obeyed, appetite or reflection?
Cannot this question be answered, from the economy and constitution
of human nature merely, without saying which is strongest? Or need
this at all come into consideration? Would not the question be
INTELLIGIBLY and fully answered by saying that the principle of
reflection or conscience being compared with the various appetites,
passions, and affections in men, the former is manifestly superior
and chief, without regard to strength? And how often soever the
latter happens to prevail, it is mere USURPATION: the former
remains in nature and in kind its superior; and every instance of
such prevalence of the latter is an instance of breaking in upon and
violation of the constitution of man.