'And so we affirm' with Cyril of Jerusalem: Taylor, the Eucharist, and breathing with both lungs

In Section X of The Real Presence and Spiritual of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament (1654), Taylor demonstrates how the eucharistic language of Saint Cyril of Jerusalem cannot be understood to entail transubstantiation. He begins by addressing Cyril's concluding statement in the fourth lecture (9):

the Roman doctors pretend certain words out of St. Cyril's fourth 'mystagogique catechism,' ['On the Mysteries'] against the doctrine of this paragraph: "Be sure of this, that this bread, which is seen of us, is not bread, although the taste perceives it to be bread, but the body of Christ: for under the species of bread, the body is given to thee; under the species of wine, the blood is given to thee" ...

St. Cyril bids you not believe your sense. For taste and sight tells you it is bread, but it is not. But here is no harm done. For himself plainly explains his meaning in his next catechism. 'Think not that you taste bread and wine,' saith he. No, what then? 'but the antitypes of the body and blood': and in this very place he calls bread 'a type'; and, therefore, it is very ill rendered by the Roman priests by 'species,' which signifies accidental forms ... but [it] is not St. Cyril's word. He says it is not bread, though the taste feel it so; that is, 'it is not mere bread,' which is an usual expression among the fathers ... just as St. Chrysostom says of baptismal water, 'it is not common water;' and as St. Cyril himself says of the sacramental bread, 'it is not mere bread, but the Lord's body'. For if it were not that, in some sense or other, it were still mere bread, but that it is not. 

Taylor is, of course, correct. Cyril's words are translated in the Parker edition of The Library of the Fathers as "the sign of the body and blood of Christ" (5.20) and, previously (in 4.3), " in the figure of Bread is given to thee His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood". Likewise, Taylor quite clearly affirms through this work that the consecrated Bread is most certainly not "mere bread". 

Turning to Saint Chrysostom also allows Taylor to demonstrate how sacramental language functioned "among the fathers". In addition to this, it was a consistent part of Reformed eucharistic theology to make the comparison with the water in Holy Baptism.

He continues with Cyril in exploring in what sense the consecrated Bread in the Holy Mysteries is not "mere bread":

it is observable that St. Cyril does not say 'it is not bread,' though the sense suppose it to be so, for that would have supposed the taste to have been deceived, which he affirms not; and if he had, we could not have believed him; but he says, 'though the sense perceive it to be bread,' so that it is still bread, else the taste would not perceive it to be so; but 'it is more,' and the sense does not perceive it; for it is 'the body of our Lord.' Here then is his own answer plainly opposed to the objection; he says, 'it is not bread,' that is, 'it is not mere bread;' and so say we: he says, that 'it is the body of our Lord, the antitype of the Lord's body,' and so say we; he says, 'the sense perceives it to be bread;' but it is more than the sense perceives; so he implies, and so we affirm; and yet we may trust our sense for all that it tells us, and our understanding too, for all it learns besides. 

'And so say we ... and so we affirm': Taylor unambiguously declares that Cyril's teaching regarding the Holy Mysteries is that of the Church of England ("we").

Likewise, he affirms Chrysostom's powerful sacramental language, dependent as it is upon the very words of Christ:

The like to this are the words of St. Chrysostom where he says, "We cannot be deceived by his words; but our sense is often deceived; look not at what is before us, but observe Christ's words. Nothing sensible is given to us, but things insensible, by things sensible". This, and many higher things than this, are in St. Chrysostom, not only relating to this, but to the other sacrament also. "Think not thou receivest the body from a man, but fire from the tongue of a seraphim"; that for the eucharist: and for the baptism this: "The priest baptizes thee not, but God holds thy head." 

In the same sense that these admit, in the same sense we may understand his other words; they are tragical and high, but may have a sober sense; but literally they sound a contradiction; that nothing sensible should be given us in the sacrament; and yet that nothing insensible should be given, but what is conveyed by things sensible; but it is not worth the while to stay here: only this, the words of St. Chrysostom are good counsel, and such as we follow; for, in this case, we do not finally rely upon sense, or resolve all into it; but we trust it only for so much as it ought to be trusted for; but we do not finally rest upon it, but upon faith, and look not on the things proposed, but attend to the words of Christ, and though we see it to be bread, we also believe it to be his body, in that sense which he intended.

Here is a profound rejection of a rationalist approach - relying upon sense alone - to the Holy Mysteries. Yes, our senses rightly perceive bread: but when we "attend of the words of Christ", we behold the "insensible" truth "conveyed by things sensible". To partake of the signs, the figures of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist is to feed upon the Lord's Body and Blood. 

To reject transubstantiation, therefore, was not to deny the Lord's words; it was not reject his Eucharistic gift. Turning to Cyril of Jerusalem and Chrysostom, Taylor affirmed with these great teachers of the Greek East that, by faith, we behold and receive Christ's Body and Blood in the Bread and Wine of the holy Sacrament.