The difficulty inherent in the concept of finite internal relations among eternal objects is thus evaded by two metaphysical principles, (i) that the relationships of any eternal object _A_, considered as constitutive of _A_, merely involve other eternal objects as bare relata without reference to their individual essences, and (ii) that the divisibility of the general relationship of _A_ into a multiplicity of finite relationships of _A_ stands therefore in the essence of that eternal object. The second principle obviously depends upon the first. To understand _A_ is to understand the _how_ of a general scheme of relationship. This scheme of relationship does not require the individual uniqueness of the other relata for its comprehension. This scheme also discloses itself as being analysable into a multiplicity of limited relationships which have their own individuality and yet at the same time presupposes the total relationship within possibility. In respect to actuality there is first the general limitation of relationships, which reduces this general unlimited scheme to the four dimensional spatio-temporal scheme. This spatio-temporal scheme is, so to speak, the greatest common measure of the schemes of relationship (as limited by actuality) inherent in all the eternal objects. By this it is meant that, _how_ select relationships of an eternal object (_A_) are realised in any actual occasion, is always explicable by expressing the status of _A_ in respect to this spatio-temporal scheme, and by expressing in this scheme the relationship of the actual occasion to other actual occasions. A definite finite relationship involving the definite eternal objects of a limited set of such objects is itself an eternal object: it is those eternal objects as in that relationship. I will call such an eternal object ‘complex.’ The eternal objects which are the relata in a complex eternal object will be called the ‘components’ of that eternal object. Also if any of these relata are themselves complex, their components will be called ‘derivative components’ of the original complex object. Also the components of derivative components will also be called derivative components of the original object. Thus the complexity of an eternal object means its analysability into a relationship of component eternal objects. Also the analysis of the general scheme of relatedness of eternal objects means its exhibition as a multiplicity of complex eternal objects. An eternal object, such as a definite shade of green, which cannot be analysed into a relationship of components, will be called ‘simple.’ We can now explain how the analytical character of the realm of eternal objects allows of an analysis of that realm into grades.