My exegesis on the passage “He that is washed, needs not,” &c. may strike some as rather bold in its illustration, yet if great authorities are necessary to support the view I have taken, I can refer at once to a legion of commentators, both ancient and modern, who all offer the same general explanation, though not exactly the same illustration. Poole’s Synopsis is rich in references to such. Among these, Vatablus remarks on the need of washing the feet of one already washed, “_scil. viae causa_.” Medonachus says of the feet, “quos calcata terra iterum inquinat.” Hammond says, “he that hath been initiated, and entered into Christ, &c. is _whole clean_, and hath no need to be so washed again, all over. All that is needful to him is the daily ministering of the word and grace of Christ, to cleanse and wash off the frailties, and imperfections, and lapses of our weak nature, those feet of the soul.” Grotius says, “Hoc tantum opus ei est, ut ab iis se purget quae ex occasione nascuntur. Similitudo sumpta ab his _qui a balneo nudis pedibus abeunt_.” Besides these and many others largely quoted by Poole, Lampius also (in commentary in Gospel of John) goes very fully into the same view, and quotes many others in illustration. Wolfius (in Cur. Philology) gives various illustrations, differing in no important particular, that I can see, from each other, nor from that of Kuinoel, who calls them “contortas expositiones,” but gives one which is the same in almost every part, but is more fully illustrated in detail, by reference to the usage of the ancients, of going to the bath before coming to a feast, which the disciples no doubt had done, and made themselves clean in all parts except their feet, which had become dirtied on the way from the bath. This is the same view which Wolf also quotes approvingly from Elsner. Wetstein is also on this point, as on all others, abundantly rich in illustrations from classic usage, to which he refers in a great number of quotations from Lucian, Herodotus, Plato, Terence and Plutarch.