Goodwin does not, in his treatise on election, or in his other writings, give prominence to the dogma of particular redemption; but he distinctly affirms in one place that the elect alone are redeemed;[522] and his whole system of theology proceeds on the principle, that the death of Christ was a ransom for the salvation of the elect. He presses to the utmost extreme the ideas of suretyship, and of debt-paying; and refers to the sinner’s liability as met by the sufferings of the Saviour, and to the sinner’s bonds as for ever cancelled by the Redeemer’s resurrection. To such an extent does the author carry his notion of the identification of the Lord with His people as their surety, that he positively declares Christ by imputation was made the greatest sinner that ever was--for the sins of all God’s chosen met in Him![523] The last stand-point of Goodwin, which I have space to notice, is _Regeneration_. In his treatise, entitled _The Work of the Holy Ghost in our Salvation_, Regeneration is the theme throughout the volume. Its necessity, its nature, and its cause are illustrated in every variety of form and phrase; and it is noteworthy that no allusion is made to the ordinance of baptism in connection with it, nor is any opportunity lost of placing this spiritual change in relation to the Divine decrees and electing love.[524] [Sidenote: JOHN OWEN.] Were it not that my proper business is to present, as succinctly as possible, the doctrinal views of the Puritans, I should most earnestly combat some of Goodwin’s theological positions, and point out the tremendous consequences which they involve--admitting, at the same time, the redeeming elements, which may be found in his ofttimes wearisome method of instruction. I will only say, that when he wandered into what appear to me not only perilous but pernicious regions of thought, he did but stumble in the midst of fields into which Augustine had gone before, and where Jonathan Edwards followed afterwards. Happily, such men are inconsistent, and whilst sacrificing the righteousness of God in one way, they contend for it most zealously in another. Owen’s works may be appropriately coupled with Goodwin’s. Their literary defects and their religious excellencies are not dissimilar. In each the reader is wearied with refinements and perplexed by multiplied divisions; in neither can be found any graces of style, any delectable flow of words, any rhythm of diction, any wealth of expression; in both are presented signs of profound reflection, of patient inquiry, of logical acumen, and also, beyond all these, proofs of intense evangelical piety.