"A charitable substitution": Taylor, original sin, and atonement

Yesterday's post considered Lancelot Andrewes's traditional Augustinian affirmation of the substitutionary nature of the Lord's Passion.  What, however, of another great Caroline, Jeremy Taylor?

Taylor's critique of Augustine is explicit.  In Deus Justificatus, for example, Taylor says of his critics, "they are as much against S. Chrysostome as I am against S. Austin".  Likewise, in The Doctrine and Practice of Repentance, he declares of Augustine's triumph over the Pelagians:

St. Austin was triumphant in the main article against those heretics, and there was great reason he should, yet that he took in too much, and refuted more than he should, appears in this, - that though the world followed him in the condemnation of Pelagianism, yet the world left him in many things which he was pleased to call Pelagianism. 

That said, caution needs to be exercised here.  Yes, Taylor identifies with a non-Augustinian stream in patristic thought:

as St Chrysostom and Theodoret did of old, in compliance with those holy fathers that went before them.

He also notes the ongoing theological diversity regarding original sin - amongst the schoolmen, the various Reformers, and Roman theologians after Trent:

Thus everyone talks of original sin and agrees that there is such a thing, but what it is they agree not.

However, Taylor affirms against both Pelagians and Socinians:

I have shewed in what sense Adam's sin is imputed to us, am so far ... from agreeing with any of these.

This leads him to then set forth how he assents to the Article 9 of the Articles of Religion:

We are born thus imperfect, unfit to reign with God for ever ... this corrupted nature deserves God's wrath.

Taylor's critique of a particular Augustinian formulation of original sin does not, therefore, lessen our need of redemption.  

Which brings us to the Passion and its substitutionary character.  Referring to the Passion in The Great Exemplar, Taylor states:

But as this object calls for our devotion, our love and eucharist to our dearest Lord; so it must needs irreconcile us to sin, which in the eye of all the world brought so great shame, and pain, and amazement upon the Son of God, when He only became engaged by a charitable substitution of Himself in our place ... here we see a great representation and testimony of the Divine justice, who was so angry with sin, who had so severely threatened it, who does so essentially hate it, that He would not spare His own Son, when He became a conjunct person, relative to the guilt by undertaking the charges of our nature - Part III.XV.6-7.

For all of his criticism of Augustine, and his rejection of certain Augustinian formulations, Taylor explicitly confessed the substitutionary nature of the Cross.  In a very traditional affirmation, Taylor states that God the Father "inflicted His anger upon our Redeemer".  While suspicious of, and hostile towards, accounts of original sin which he regarded as "no friends to piety, but pretences of idleness", Taylor robustly declared our need of redemption by means of the Passion of the Redeemer, and the substitutionary character of His sufferings.  

In the words of the prayer with which Taylor concludes his considerations upon the Passion in The Great Exemplar:

O dearest Saviour, I adore Thy mercies and Thy incomparable love expressed in Thy so voluntary susception and affectionate suffering such horried and sad tortures, which cannot be remembered without a sad compassion; the water of bitterness entered into Thy soul, and the storms of death, and Thy Father's anger, broke Thee all in pieces; and what shall I do, who by my sins have so tormented my dearest Lord?