If you deny wisdom, you allow that He may perform acts through which He attains no perfection. They may then be told: Say of His voluntary acts subsisting in Him what you say of created effects coming into existence from Him—which is what you call action.

If you affirm wisdom, you may be told: The wisdom attained through an act that comes into existence itself comes into existence after that act. Is the coming into existence of this wisdom after it did not exist—whether it subsists in Him or in another—an attribute of perfection or not?

If you say that it is an attribute of perfection, then say of the act itself what you say of the wisdom sought through it.

If you say that it is not an attribute of perfection, then say of the act itself what you say of the wisdom sought.

Thus, whether you affirm wisdom or deny it, you are committed to precisely the same implications regarding wisdom as regarding the act itself. This is plain and clear.

[The tenth argument]

Those who affirm that both action and wisdom subsist in Him may say: It is evident to plain reason that this is an attribute of perfection, and that one who is thus is more perfect than one who does not act, or who acts without wisdom. Why, then, do you say that this is impossible?

If the reply is: “So that perfection after imperfection does not follow,” they may be asked: “Why do you say that the existence of such perfection is impossible?”