and the like: the apparent meaning of the wording entails generality and comprehensive inclusion. Likewise, we say of a command that its apparent meaning—a request addressed by a superior to an inferior—entails obligation, and similarly in other cases where customary usage determines the apparent meaning. Once this is established, there can be no doubt or uncertainty, as we have explained, that when an attribute is affirmed of a subject, whether literally or figuratively, the hearer does not understand it to denote the entire essence of which it is predicated. This is undisputed.

The purpose here is to invalidate the figurative interpretation claimed by our opponent. Once this is established, it must denote a particular attribute: it cannot be used to refer to the essence, nor was it coined to denote it, either literally or figuratively.

As for their statement:

“If it is established that this is an attribute when ascribed to a living being, and that it does not stand for the essence, then it must be an organ and a bodily member possessing quantity and quality.”

This does not follow. What they mention holds in relation to the essence of a created living being, not because of anything peculiar to the attribute of a face, but because of the relation of faces to the essence as a whole, given the composite nature established for that essence, with its quantities, qualities, and forms,