s　〃Everlasting〃　as　expressing　no　more　than　Authentic　Being：　it　is　merely　a　partial　expression　of　a　potency　which　ignores　all　interval　or　term　and　can　look　forward　to　nothing　by　way　of　addition　to　the　All　which　it　possesses。　The　Principle　of　which　this　is　the　statement　will　be　the　All…Existent；　and；　as　being　all；　can　have　no　failing　or　deficiency；　cannot　be　at　some　one　point　complete　and　at　some　other　lacking。　　　　　Things　and　Beings　in　the　Time　order…　even　when　to　all　appearance　complete；　as　a　body　is　when　fit　to　harbour　a　soul…　are　still　bound　to　sequence；　they　are　deficient　to　the　extent　of　that　thing；　Time；　which　they　need：　let　them　have　it；　present　to　them　and　running　side　by　side　with　them；　and　they　are　by　that　very　fact　incomplete；　completeness　is　attributed　to　them　only　by　an　accident　of　language。　　　　　But　the　conception　of　Eternity　demands　something　which　is　in　its　nature　complete　without　sequence；　it　is　not　satisfied　by　something　measured　out　to　any　remoter　time　or　even　by　something　limitless；　but；　in　its　limitless　reach；　still　having　the　progression　of　futurity：　it　requires　something　immediately　possessed　of　the　due　fullness　of　Being；　something　whose　Being　does　not　depend　upon　any　quantity　＇such　as　instalments　of　time＇　but　subsists　before　all　quantity。　　　　　Itself　having　no　quantity；　it　can　have　no　contact　with　anything　quantitative　since　its　Life　cannot　be　made　a　thing　of　fragments；　in　contradiction　to　the　partlessness　which　is　its　character；　it　must　be　without　parts　in　the　Life　as　in　the　essence。　　　　　The　phrase　〃He　was　good〃　＇used　by　Plato　of　the　Demiurge＇　refers　to　the　Idea　of　the　All；　and　its　very　indefiniteness　signifies　the　utter　absense　of　relation　to　Time：　so　that　even　this　Universe　has　had　no　temporal　beginning；　and　if　we　speak　of　something　〃before〃　it；　that　is　only　in　the　sense　of　the　Cause　from　which　it　takes　its　Eternal　Existence。　Plato　used　the　word　merely　for　the　convenience　of　exposition；　and　immediately　corrects　it　as　inappropriate　to　the　order　vested　with　the　Eternity　he　conceives　and　affirms。　　　　　7。　Now　comes　the　question　whether；　in　all　this　discussion；　we　are　not　merely　helping　to　make　out　a　case　for　some　other　order　of　Beings　and　talking　of　matters　alien　to　ourselves。　　　　　But　how　could　that　be？　What　understanding　can　there　be　failing　some　point　of　contact？　And　what　contact　could　there　be　with　the　utterly　alien？　　　　　We　must　then　have；　ourselves；　some　part　or　share　in　Eternity。　　　　　Still；　how　is　this　possible　to　us　who　exist　in　Time？　　　　　The　whole　question　turns　on　the　distinction　between　being　in　Time　and　being　in　Eternity；　and　this　will　be　best　realized　by　probing　to　the　Nature　of　Time。　We　must；　therefore；　descend　from　Eternity　to　the　investigation　of　Time；　to　the　realm　of　Time：　till　now　we　have　been　taking　the　upward　way；　we　must　now　take　the　downward…　not　to　the　lowest　levels　but　within　the　degree　in　which　Time　itself　is　a　descent　from　Eternity。　　　　　If　the　venerable　sages　of　former　days　had　not　treated　of　Time；　our　method　would　be　to　begin　by　linking　to　＇the　idea　of＇　Eternity　＇the　idea　of＇　its　Next　＇its　inevitable　downward　or　outgoing　subsequent　in　the　same　order＇；　then　setting　forth　the　probable　nature　of　such　a　Next　and　proceeding　to　show　how　the　conception　thus　formed　tallies　with　our　own　doctrine。　　　　　But；　as　things　are；　our　best　beginning　is　to　range　over　the　most　noteworthy　of　the　ancient　opinions　and　see　whether　any　of　them　accord　with　ours。　　　　　Existing　explanations　of　Time　seem　to　fall　into　three　classes：　　　　　Time　is　variously　identified　with　what　we　know　as　Movement；　with　a　moved　object；　and　with　some　phenomenon　of　Movement：　obviously　it　cannot　be　Rest　or　a　resting　object　or　any　phenomenon　of　rest；　since；　in　its　characteristic　idea；　it　is　concerned　with　change。　　　　　Of　those　that　explain　it　as　Movement；　some　identify　it　with　Absolute　Movement　＇or　with　the　total　of　Movement＇；　others　with　that　of　the　All。　Those　that　make　it　a　moved　object　would　identify　it　with　the　orb　of　the　All。　Those　that　conceive　it　as　some　phenomenon；　or　some　period；　of　Movement　treat　it；　severally；　either　as　a　standard　of　measure　or　as　something　inevitably　accompanying　Movement；　abstract　or　definite。　　　　　8。　Movement　Time　cannot　be…　whether　a　definite　act　of　moving　is　meant　or　a　united　total　made　up　of　all　such　acts…　since　movement；　in　either　sense；　takes　place　in　Time。　And；　of　course；　if　there　is　any　movement　not　in　Time；　the　identification　with　Time　becomes　all　the　less　tenable。　　　　　In　a　word；　Movement　must　be　distinct　from　the　medium　in　which　it　takes　place。　　　　　And；　with　all　that　has　been　said　or　is　still　said；　one　consideration　is　decisive：　Movement　can　come　to　rest；　can　be　intermittent；　Time　is　continuous。　　　　　We　will　be　told　that　the　Movement　of　the　All　is　continuous　＇and　so　may　be　identical　with　Time＇。　　　　　But；　if　the　reference　is　to　the　Circuit　of　the　heavenly　system　＇it　is　not　strictly　continuous；　or　equable；　since＇　the　time　taken　in　the　return　path　is　not　that　of　the　outgoing　movement；　the　one　is　twice　as　long　as　the　other：　this　Movement　of　the　All　proceeds；　therefore；　by　two　different　degrees；　the　rate　of　the　entire　journey　is　not　that　of　the　first　half。　　　　　Further；　the　fact　that　we　hear　of　the　Movement　of　the　outermost　sphere　being　the　swiftest　confirms　our　theory。　Obviously；　it　is　the　swiftest　of　movements　by　taking　the　lesser　time　to　traverse　the　greater　space　the　very　greatest…　all　other　moving　things　are　slower　by　taking　a　longer　time　to　traverse　a　mere　segment　of　the　same　extension：　in　other　words；　Time　is　not　this　movement。　　　　　And；　if　Time　is　not　even　the　movement　of　the　Kosmic　Sphere　much　less　is　it　the　sphere　itself　though　that　has　been　identified　with　Time　on　the　ground　of　its　being　in　motion。　　　　　Is　it；　then；　some　phenomenon　or　connection　of　Movement？　　　　　Let　us；　tentatively；　suppose　it　to　be　extent；　or　duration；　of　Movement。　　　　　Now；　to　begin　with；　Movement；　even　continuous；　has　no　unchanging　extent　＇as　Time　the　equable　has＇；　since；　even　in　space；　it　may　be　faster　or　slower；　there　must；　therefore；　be　some　unit　of　standard　outside　it；　by　which　these　differences　are　measurable；　and　this　outside　standard　would　more　properly　be　called　Time。　And　failing　such　a　measure；　which　extent　would　be　Time；　that　of　the　fast　or　of　the　slow…　or　rather　which　of　them　all；　since　these　speed…differences　are　limitless？　　　　　Is　it　the　extent　of　the　subordinate　Movement　＇=　movement　of　things　of　earth＇？　　　　　Again；　this　gives　us　no　unit　since　the　movement　is　infinitely　variable；　we　would　have；　thus；　not　Time　but　Times。　　　　　The　extent　of　the　Movement　of　the　All；　then？　　　　　The　Celestial　Circuit　may；　no　doubt；　be　thought　of　in　terms　of　quantity。　It　answers　to　measure…　in　two　ways。　First　there　is　space；　the　movement　is　commensurate　with　the　area　it　passes　through；　and　this　area　is　its　extent。　But　this　gives　us；　still；　space　only；　not　Time。　Secondly；　the　circuit；　considered　apart　from　distance　traversed；　has　the　extent　of　its　continuity；　of　its　tendency　not　to　stop　but　to　proceed　indefinitely：　but　this　is　merely　amplitude　of　Movement；　search　it；　tell　its　vastness；　and；　still；　Time　has　no　more　appeared；　no　more　enters　into　the　matter；　than　when　one　certifies　a　high　pitch　of　heat；　all　we　have　discovered　is　Motion　in　ceaseless　succession；　like　water　flowing　ceaselessly；　motion　and　extent　of　motion。　　　　　Succession　or　repetition　gives　us　Number…　dyad；　triad；　etc。…　and　the　extent　traversed　is　a　matter　of　Magnitude；　thus　we　have　Quantity　of　Movement…　in　the　form　of　number；　dyad；　triad；　decade；　or　in　the　form　of　extent　apprehended　in　what　we　may　call　the　amount　of　the　Movement：　but；　the　idea　of　Time　we　have　not。　That　definite　Quantity　is　merely　something　occurring　within　Time；　for；　otherwise　Time　is　not　everywhere　but　is　something　belonging　to　Movement　which　thus　would　be　its　substratum　or　basic…stuff：　once　more；　then；　we　would　be　making　Time　identical　with　Movement；　for　the　extent　of　Movement　is　not　something　outside　it　but　is　simply　its　continuousness；　and　we　need　not　halt　upon　the　difference　between　the　momentary　and　the　continuous；　which　is　simply　one　of　manner　and　degree。　The　extended　movement　and　its　extent　are　not　Time；　they　are　in　Time。　Those　that　explain　Time　as　extent　of　Movement　must　mean　not　the　extent　of　the　movement　itself　but　something　which　determines　its　extension；　something　with　which　the　movement　keeps　pace　in　its　course。　But　what　this　something　is；　we　are　not　told；　yet　it　is；　clearly；　Time；　that　in　which　all　Movement　proceeds。　This　is　what　our　discussion　has　aimed　at　from　the　first：　〃What；　essentially；　is　Time？〃　It　comes　to　this：　we　ask　〃What　is　Time？〃　and　we　are　answered；　〃Time　is　the　extension　of　Movement　in　Time！〃　　　　　On　the　one　hand　Time　is　said　to　be　an　extension　apart　from　and　outside　that　of　Movement；　and　we　are　left　to　guess　what　this　extension　may　be：　on　the　other　hand；　it　is　represented　as　the　extension　of　Movement；　and　this　leaves　the　difficulty　what　to　make　of　the　extension　of　Rest…　though　one　thing　may　continue　as　long　in　repose　as　another　in　motion；　so　that　we　are　obliged　to　think　of　one　thing　Time　that　covers　both　Rest　and　Movements；　and；　therefore；　stands　distinct　from　either。　　　　　What　then　is　this　thing　of　extension？　To　what　order　of　beings　does　it　belong？　　　　　It　obviously　is　not　spatial；　for　place；　too；　is　so