iff. . . in
vs. 1 John 1.10.
1 John 1.10
And yet ... in
me. Cf. CWM 8/1.444/19–25.
that good ... in
me. Rom. 7.19–20.
Romans 7.19–20
Thus are we synners
and no synners. Tyndale works with Luther's thesis that the
believer is simul iustus et peccator. But Tyndale
gives a broader basis for the righteousness opposed to
sin, grounding it in the promise laid hold of in trust, like Luther, but
also in assent to the law as good and regret over not observing it
[C1v, “No synners . . . to oure fayth”]. On Luther's doctrine of the simul a
basic study is Rudolph Hermann, Luthers These "Gerecht
und Sünder zugleich" (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1930). Also,
Wicks,"Living and Praying as simul iustus et
peccator: a Chapter in Luther's Spiritual Teaching," Gregorianum
70 (1989) 521–48, rpt. in Luther's Reform.
For Luther, as for Tyndale, the condition of the one who is simul iustus et peccator is not static, for the
Holy Spirit is actively opposing the flesh's endemic sinful
seeking.
All fleshe doth sinne.[[1573]
No . . . out.
Cf. CWM 8/1.446/24–30.
when
. . . out. Paraphrased at CWM
8/1.455/11–13.
yocke of God.
Cf. Matt. 11.29–30.
Matthew 11.29–30
nether . . .
synne. Cf. Rom. 6.13.
Romans 6.13
when
. . . out. Paraphrased at CWM
8/1.455/11–13.
Furthermoare . . .
batayle. Cf. CWM 8/1.419/31— 420/27. After quoting a page and a
half of Answer, Confutation subdivides this long
quotation and deals with it in smaller portions over the next forty-some
pages. Cf. [commentary notes for C1-C1v, this edition].
Thus . . .
batayle. Cf. CWM 8/1.445/33–446/8.
we . . .
batayle. Cf. CWM 8/1. 448/6–8.