Jaroslav Pelikan, from his chapter on “The Tragic Necessity of the Reformation”:
Not a new “Protestant” gospel, then, but the gospel of the true church, the catholic church of all generations, is what the Reformers claimed to be espousing. Substantiation for this understanding of the gospel came principally from the Scriptures; but whenever they could, the reformers also quoted the fathers of the catholic church. There was more to quote than their Roman opponents found comfortable. Every major tenet of the Reformation had considerable support in the catholic tradition.
~Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959), pp. 48-49.
Source: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/martin-luther-invented-justification-by-faith-alone.3362/, Comment 13
James Fisher, Shorter Catechism explained, question 45:
…in the gospel, strictly and properly-taken, as it is contra-distinct from the law, there can be no precept; because the gospel in this strict sense, is nothing else than a promise, or glad tidings of a Saviour, with grace, mercy, and salvation in him, for lost sinners of Adam’s family: according to the following scriptures, Gen. iii. 15; Isa. lxi. 1, 2, 3; Luke ii. 10, 11.
Source: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/why-does-limited-atonement-matter.87650/page-3, Comment 75
Ebenezer Erskine, Works, 1:383:
The unbeliever is already condemned in the gospel-court. Now, do not mistake this way of speaking, as if, when I speak of the gospel-court, I meant, that the gospel, strictly considered, condemned any man: the gospel, like its glorious Author, “comes not into the world to condemn the world, but that the world, through” it, “might be saved.” Neither do I mean, as if there were new precepts and penalties in the gospel, considered in a strict sense, which were never found in the book or court of the law. This is an assertion which has laid the foundation for a train of damnable and soul-ruining errors; as of the Antinomian error, in discarding the whole moral law as a rule of obedience under the gospel; the Baxterian error, of an evangelical righteousness different from the imputed righteousness of Christ; the Pelagian and Arminian error, of a sufficient grace given to every man that hears the gospel, to believe and repent by his own power.
Source: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/why-does-limited-atonement-matter.87650/page-3, Comment 74
Ebenezer Erskine, Works, 1:527-528:
You would know, that the gospel, strictly taken, is a word of promise. The first gospel that ever was preached to our first parents, when a dismal cloud of wrath was hanging over their heads in Paradise after the fall, was in a promise, Gen. iii. 15: “The seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the serpent.” The gospel preached to Abraham, what was it but a promise of Christ? “In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed,” Gal. iii. 8. And I think it observable, that the same thing which the apostle calls the gospel, ver. 8, he calls the promise, and the covenant, ver. 17—19. So that the gospel, strictly taken, is a word of promise: so Heb. iv. 1, 2, compared, — what the apostle calls “a promise of entering into God’s rest” in the 1st verse, he calls the gospel in the 2nd verse. And a God of love and grace dispenses his grace in a promise, for our encouragement to take hold of it in a way of believing; for there is nothing in which the faithfulness of God is so much engaged as in a promise, the very design of which is to be believed.
Source: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/why-does-limited-atonement-matter.87650/page-3, Comment 73
Ebenezer Erskine, Works, 1:300:
For if this be so, then inevitably we must first obey Christ as a king, by repenting and believing, in order to our being justified by him as a priest; besides many other dangerous consequences which are unavoidable upon this new law-scheme. All which are avoided, by teaching, with the strain of orthodox divines, that there are no precepts in the gospel strictly taken; and that Christ in the gospel gives no new laws, but enforces the old law, namely, the moral, which being adapted to the gospel-dispensation, obliges us to believe in Christ upon his being revealed to us in the gospel, and consequently to repent also in an evangelical manner. For that these duties of faith and repentance, as to their essence, are required in the very first commandment of the moral law, is indisputably evident; and I do think it strange, to find it controverted by any who embrace and own the doctrine of the church of Scotland, particularly the Larger Catechism, where that point is plainly determined, in the explication of the foresaid first commandment.
Source: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/why-does-limited-atonement-matter.87650/page-3, Comment 72
Herman Witsius, The economy of the covenants, volume 1, pp. 370:
The covenant of grace, or the gospel, strictly so called, which is the model of that covenant, since it consists in mere promises, prescribes nothing properly as duty, requires nothing, commands nothing; not even this, Believe, trust, hope in the Lord, and the like. But it declares, sets forth, and signifies to us, what God promises in Christ, what he would have done, and what he is about to do. All prescription of duty belongs to the law, as, after others, the venerable Voetius has very well inculcated. And we are by all means, to maintain this, if, with the whole body of the reformed, we would constantly defend the perfection of the law, which comprehends all virtues, and all the duties of holiness.
Source: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/why-does-limited-atonement-matter.87650/page-3, Comment 71