The Greeks called the character ηθο?, and its expression, i.e., morals, ηθη. But this word comes from εθο?, custom; they chose it in order to express metaphorically the constancy of character through the constancy of custom. Το γαρ ηθο? απο του εθου? εχει την επωνυμιαν. ηθικε γαρ καλειται δια το εθιζεσθαι (a voce ηθο?, i.e.,consuetudo ηθο? est appellatum: ethica ergo dicta est απο του εθιζεσθαι, sivi ab assuescendo) says Aristotle (Eth. Magna, i. 6, p. 1186, and Eth. Eud., p. 1220, and Eth. Nic., p. 1103, ed. Ber.) Stob?us quotes: ο? δε κατα Ζηνωνα τροπικω?; ηθο? εστι πηγη βιου αφ? ?? α? κατα μερο? πραξει? ρεουσι (Stoici autem, Zenonis castra sequentes, metaphorice ethos definiunt vit? fontem, e quo singul? manant actiones), ii. ch. 7. In Christian theology we find the dogma of predestination in consequence of election and non-election (Rom. ix. 11-24), clearly originating from the knowledge that man does not change himself, but his life and conduct, i.e., his empirical character, is only the unfolding of his intelligible character, the development of decided and unchangeable natural dispositions recognisable even in the child; therefore, as it were, even at his birth his conduct is firmly determined, and [pg 379] remains essentially the same to the end. This we entirely agree with; but certainly the consequences which followed from the union of this perfectly correct insight with the dogmas that already existed in Jewish theology, and which now gave rise to the great difficulty, the Gordian knot upon which most of the controversies of the Church turned, I do not undertake to defend, for even the Apostle Paul scarcely succeeded in doing so by means of his simile of the potter's vessels which he invented for the purpose, for the result he finally arrived at was nothing else than this:—