II. About the Ways it can be Signified

355. How then should one speak?

I reply that, when taking each term directly as nominatives, neither should be predicated of the other in any of these ways.

356. So if the predication is to be true, one of the terms must be taken in an oblique case, denoting the order of one extreme to the other.

357. And this can be done in two ways:

First with the preposition ‘from’ or ‘of’, by adding the term ‘from which’, as the Philosopher says Metaphysics 2.2.994ab2-3, that from morning midday comes to be, and not conversely. And in this way one can concede that from the bread the body of Christ comes to be.

Secondly by adding to the term ‘to which’ the preposition ‘into’, which denotes that it is the term ‘to which’. In this way does the bread pass into the body of Christ.

358. And all these locutions about the force of the statement reduce to one of these two ways. But the second is more proper, because it does not denote that anything common remains, as the preposition ‘from’ in some way does, according to the way that ‘from’ is properly taken. For an opposite only comes to be ‘from’ the opposite because it is from a subject common to both opposites, according to the Philosopher Physics 1.7189b32-190a21, On Generation 1.4.319b18-320a5, Metaphysics 2.2.994a22-b6.

359. But no proposition taken along with change or movement (even when taking one term in an oblique case and the other in the nominative case) is true, as ‘the bread is changed into the body of Christ’; for there is no change here, as was said in question 1 of this distinction [n.45].

360. But ‘transition’ or ‘(con)vert’ abstract from the idea of change, because they posit the relation of term to term without implying that a common subject remains.