'As S. Cyril of Alexandria argues': Taylor, the Eucharist, and breathing with both lungs

In Section XI of The Real Presence and Spiritual of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament (1654), Taylor's use of Fathers of the Eastern Churches continues. He invokes them in the context of affirming that - in the words of the so-called Black Rubric - "the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here" (emphasis added). The first Eastern father to whom Taylor turns in this section is Theodoret of Cyrus:

Christ as man according to the body is in a place and goes from a place, and when he comes to another place is not in the place from whence he came ... So Theodoret, Domini corpus incorruptibile resurrexit & impatibile & immortale, & divinâ gloriâ glorificatum est, & à coelestibus adoratur potestatibus; corpus tamen est, priorem habens circumscriptionem. Christs body even after the resurrection is circumscribed as it was before. And therefore as it is impious to deny God to be invisible: so it is profane, not to believe and professe the son of God in his assum'd humanity to be visible, corporeal, and local after the resurrection: It is the saying of S. Austin.

Quoting Augustine alongside Theodoret again points to a 'Greek' vision of fathers of East and West, Greek and Latin united in confession of a common faith, before later Latin innovations undermined this - a view Taylor, of course, is particularly urging with regard to eucharistic doctrine.

This is also seen when he places Origen alongside a list of Latin figures, in relating Christology to the Eucharist:

Of the same nature is that other argument used frequently by the primitive Doctors, proving two natures to be in Christ, the Divine and the Humane, and the difference between them is remarked in this, that the Divine is in many places, and in all: but the Humane can be but in one at once. This is affirmed by Origen, S. Hilary, S. Hierome, S. Austin, Gelasius, Fulgentius, and Ven. Bede.

Again we see Taylor's openness to Origen, here standing - it seems - for the Greek Fathers in general.

Then there is Cyril of Alexandria:

Nothing can receive it self, nothing can really participate of it self, and properly; figuratively and Sacramentally this may be done; but not in a natural and physical sense; for as S. Cyril of Alexandria argues; Si verè idem est quod participat & quod participatur, quid opus est participatione? What need he partake of himself? what need he receive a part of that which he is already whole? and if the partaker, and the thing partaken be naturally the same, then the Sacrament did as much eat Christ, as Christ did eat the Sacrament.

This is not the first time Taylor quotes from Cyril of Alexandria in this work: he is also quoted in Section I and in Section V. We might suggest that Christology is the particular reason that Taylor turns to Cyril when it comes to eucharistic doctrine. Cyril's first letter to Succensus declared of the union of divinity and humanity in the Incarnation, "in an ineffable way that transcends understanding, without confusion, without change, and without alteration". Significant also in Hooker's account of the Lord's presence in the holy Eucharist, this appropriately summarises Taylor's understanding of 'the real presence and spiritual' in the Sacrament. 


Popular Posts