Ifor tells us, in the Preface to this work, that it was inspired by the gift of a book containing the text of a sermon by Ælfric Grammaticus. Evidently he was intrigued by this volume, printed both in 10th Century and in 16th Century English, so that its subject matter came to mind when he was deciding upon a subject for his Master's thesis.
The thesis itself may appear at first to be somewhat diffuse in its structure. In part, this doubtless reflects the way in which the author went about writing it. Where, in his researches, he encountered a topic which interested him, he seems to have included it even when it was tangential to the subject. Yet this is not entirely the case, for there is a definite organisation to the work. It seems likely that each chapter, though not obviously part of a coherent argument, is intended to lead the reader to the final section, where he proposes an alternative interpretation of a particular point in the orthodox understanding of Transubstantiation.
Ifor begins with a lengthy quotation from Ælfric's Paschal Sermon, which was his original inspiration, and which also serves to introduce the subject to the reader. In Chapters 2 to 4, he follows this with a summary of Church doctrine concerning the Eucharist. Next, in Chapters 5 and 6, he provides the sources on which that doctrine was founded, culminating with the definitive decrees of the Council of Trent in 1551.
Having dealt with the essentials, Ifor takes time in Chapter 7 to present a selection of quotes from Saint Augustine's On Christian Doctrine. We may suppose this is intended in large part as a potential defence against a charge of publishing heretical opinions. That done, he shifts in Chapter 8 to a summary of Aristotle's teachings. This, he announces, is intended to provide the background to the concepts on which the doctrine of Transubstantiation is based. In concluding the chapter he repeats Aristotle's assertion that 'accidents' cannot exist without a 'subject' - that is, properties such as colour cannot exist in isolation: they must belong to some entity. He will return to this point in the last chapter.
In Chapter 9 he goes further, discussing the nature of matter, with the manner of its creation thrown in as a minor digression. His conclusion is that matter as we know it (wood, metal, stone) is not entirely featureless, but has certain typical properties. Thus Ifor asserts that 'accidents' can belong to raw matter, and not only to entities (which are composed of matter shaped by a metaphysical form, as an iron ball is made from material iron and the mathematical sphere).
In Chapter 10, Ifor enquires further into the doctrine of the Real Presence. Although he rejects the proposition that Christ's words can only be taken literally, he accepts the Catholic dogma of a real substantial presence; it is seems unlikely that he would dare to do otherwise. There follows a short chapter explaining how the whole Christ can be in a small quantity of bread and wine, by introducing the different way in which material and spiritual beings are said to be 'in a place'.
In the next four chapters, Ifor strikes off somewhat at a tangent. Chapter 12 discusses the ingestion and digestion of the Eucharistic body and blood of Christ, and how this imparts spiritual nourishment. In Chapter 13 he briefly explains that this sacrament must be approached worthily, else it brings harm. Yet one must suspect that this is largely a pretext to introduce the subject of witchcraft, which seems to be a bugbear of his. Chapter 14 speculates upon whether the sacrament of Baptism also involves a kind of transubstantiation. Chapter 15 then discusses the possibility that the human body may have an imperfect corporeal form as well as an immortal soul.
Chapter 16 deals with the doctrine of Transubstantiation as stated by Saint Thomas Aquinas. The orthodox view is that the 'accidents' (physical properties) of the bread and wine remain, without being attached to any object. Ifor dislikes this on philosophical grounds, and in Chapter 17 he proposes an alternative. However, in the face of pronouncements by eminent churchmen, he only offers his ideas as a hypothesis. And so he concludes his discourse.
©2005,2006 Trevor Barker MA DPhil.