the denial of a limit, for there you denied that which entails His being described as either having a limit or having none. That being so, the apparent meaning of the statement is that this expression signifies that He has a specific magnitude but is not susceptible to increase or decrease. This explicitly states the position of his opponents, whom he calls corporealists. Besides revealing a contradiction, this entails that this meaning necessarily belongs to the name in its figurative usage just as it does in its literal usage, and that the name cannot be dissociated from this meaning.

The twenty-fourth argument: If the statement that He is not susceptible to increase or decrease does not apparently affirm magnitude while denying increase and decrease, then, at best, it is ambiguous. It admits both this interpretation and the denial of magnitude, which entails that neither of the two contradictory alternatives can be predicated of Him. If his explanation of the name is ambiguous, admitting both his view and that of his opponents, and he has stated that this is the figurative meaning in which the name may be understood, then it follows that, even when understood figuratively, the name does not exclude his opponents’ view but admits it—while its literal meaning plainly conveys that view. If, then, his opponents’ view is the literal meaning of the expression, while its figurative meaning admits their view just as it admits that of the claimant, the name must be understood as signifying his opponents’ view.