224、爱和智慧，情感和思维，甚至任何思维观念，其最小元素无不有这两种层级在里面，因为爱和智慧是实质和形式(如50-53节所示)，情感和思维同样如此。由于没有这些层级在里面的形式是不存在的，如前所述，故可推知，这些层级同样存在于它们里面。事实上，将爱和智慧，或情感和思维从拥有形式的实质中分离出来，就是毁灭它们，把它们化为乌有，因为它们不可能脱离其主体而存在。确切地说，它们是这些主体的状态，在其变化中为人所感知，这些状态使得它们可见。
224. The reason there is not the slightest trace of love and wisdom or of desire and thought or of a mental image that does not have levels of both kinds in it is that love and wisdom, and likewise desire and thought, are substance and form (as I have explained in 40-43 above). As I have already stated [223] there is no form that does not involve levels of both kinds. It follows that they involve these same levels. To separate love and wisdom or desire and thought from substance-in-form is to annihilate them because they do not occur apart from their subjects. They are actually manifested by the states of these subjects as we perceive them when they change.
224. The reason there is not the least element of love and wisdom, not the least element of affection and thought, and not the least element of any idea in the thought which does not have in it degrees of both kinds arises from the fact that love and wisdom are substance and form (as we showed above in nos. 40-43), and so likewise affection and thought. And because there is no form which does not have it in these degrees, as we said above, it follows that the same degrees exist in them. For to separate love and wisdom or affection and thought from substance possessing form is to reduce them to nothing, because they do not exist apart from the subjects of which they are predicated. Rather they are states of these subjects perceived by a person in their variation, states which render them discernible.
224. There cannot be the least things of love and wisdom, or the least things of affection and thought, or even the least things of an idea of thought in which there are not degrees of both kinds, for the reason that love and wisdom are substance and form (as was shown above40-43). The same is true of affection and thought. And because there can be no form in which these degrees are not, as was stated above, it follows that there are like degrees in these. For to separate love and wisdom, or affection and thought, from substance in form, is to annihilate them, because they are not possible outside their subjects, for they are states of their subjects perceived by man in variation, and these states present them to view.
224. There cannot be the least thing of love and wisdom, or the least thing of affection and thought, or even the least thing of an idea of thought, in which there are not degrees of both kinds, for the reason that love and wisdom are substance and form (as shown above (Divine Love and Wisdom 40-43), n. 50-53), and the same is true of affection and thought; and because there can be no form in which these degrees are not (as was said above), it follows that in these there are like degrees; for to separate love and wisdom, or affection and thought, from substance in form, is to annihilate them, since they are not possible outside of their subjects; for they are states of their subjects perceived by man varyingly, which states present them to view.
224. Quod non minimum amoris et sapientiae, nec minimum affectionis et cogitationis, et nec minimum ideae cogitationis, detur in quo non sunt utriusque generis gradus, est quia amor et sapientia sunt substantia et forma, ut supra, 40-43, ostensum est, similiter affectio et cogitatio: et quia non datur forma, in qua non illi gradus sunt, ut supra dictum est, sequitur quod similes gradus illis sint; separare enim amorem et sapientiam, tum affectionem et cogitationem, a substantia in forma, est annihilare illa, quia non dantur extra sua subjecta, sunt enim horum status ab homine percepti in variatione, qui sistunt illa.