it, it was done with far more solemnity, and prescribed far more punctually and particularly, than the former.  It is said only, ‘as he was eating he took bread;’ so that this would seem to be but an occasional business:  but here ’he rose up, he laid by his garments, he girded himself, he poured out the water, he washed their feet, he wiped them with a towel.’  He did this to all of them; which are circumstances surely far more observable than those noted in the other.  The former was a practice common among the Jews, used by all masters of families, upon that occasion; but this, as to the manner, and person acting it, to wit, for the master to rise up, and wash the feet of his servants and disciples, was more singular and observable.  In the breaking of bread and giving of wine, it is not pleaded by our adversaries, nor yet mentioned in the text, that he particularly put them into the hands of all; but breaking it, and blessing it, gave it the nearest, and so they from hand to hand.  But here it is mentioned, that he washed not the feet of one or two, but of many.  He saith not in the former, that if they do not eat of that bread, and drink of that wine, that they shall be prejudiced by it; but here he says expressly to Peter, that ‘if he wash him not, he hath no part with him;’ which being spoken upon Peter’s refusing to let him wash his feet, would seem to import no less, than not the continuance only, but even the necessity of this ceremony.  In the former, he saith as it were passingly, ’Do this in remembrance of me:’  but here he sitteth down again; he desires them to consider what he hath done; tells them positively ’that as he hath done to them, so ought they to do to one another:’  and yet again he redoubles that precept, by telling them, ’that he has given them an example, that they should do so likewise.’  If we respect the nature of the thing, it hath as much in it as either baptism or the breaking of the bread; seeing it is an outward element of a cleansing nature, applied to the outward man, by the command and the example of Christ, to signify an inward purifying.  I would willingly propose this seriously to men, that will be pleased to make use of that reason and understanding that God hath given them, and not be imposed upon, nor abused by the custom or tradition of others, whether this ceremony, if we respect either the time that it was appointed in, or the circumstances wherewith it was performed, or the command enjoining the use of it, hath not as much to recommend it for a standing ordinance of the Gospel, as either water-baptism, or bread and wine, or any other of that kind?  I wonder then, what reason the Papists can give, why they have not numbered it among their sacraments, except merely Voluntas Ecclesiae et Traditio Patrum, that is, the Tradition of the Fathers, and the Will of the Church.”

[Footnote 143:  John 13. 3. &c.]