Peter saith to him: Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him: If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me.

“(t. xxxii. 5.) This is an instance, that a man may say a thing with a good intention, and yet ignorantly to His hurt. Peter, ignorant of our Lord’s deep meaning, at first, as if in doubt, says mildly, Lord, dost Thou wash my feet? and then, Thou shalt never wash my feet; which was in reality to cut himself off from having a part with Jesus. Whence he not only blames our Lord for washing the disciples’ feet, but also his fellow-disciples for giving their feet to be washed. (c. 6.). As Peter then did not see his own good, our Lord did not allow His wish to be fulfilled: Jesus answered and said unto him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with Me.”

“After the Evangelist commended the majesty of Christ, here he commends his humility, which he shows in the washing of the feet. And first the preparation of Christ for the office of humility is set forth; second, the office itself is described, at the place then he poured water into a basin, and so on. Concerning the first, it must be known that Christ, in the office of humility, shows himself a minister, according to that saying of Matthew 20:28: "the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many." Now three things are required for a good minister. First, that he be watchful to see all things that might be lacking to the service, and this would be greatly hindered if he were sitting or lying down; hence it belongs to servants to stand; and therefore it says he rises from supper. Luke 22:27: "which is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth?" Second, that he be unencumbered so that he can suitably carry out all the things necessary for the service; and to this a multitude of garments is a great hindrance; and therefore the Lord lays aside his garments. This was indeed signified in Genesis 17:23, that Abraham chose unencumbered servants. Third, that he be ready to serve, that is, that he have all the things necessary for the service. Luke 10:40 says of Martha that she was busy about much serving. And hence it is that the Lord, having taken a towel, girded himself, so that he might be ready not only to wash the feet but also to wipe them; by which he tramples down every kind of swelling pride, in that he who goes to God and came forth from God washes feet. Now this deed can be understood mystically as referring to two things: namely to the incarnation of Christ, and to his passion. If indeed it is referred to the incarnation, then three things are here taken concerning Christ. First, the will to come to the aid of the human race, in that he rises from supper. For as long as God allows us to be afflicted, he seems to remain seated; but when he snatches us from affliction, he seems to rise up; Psalm 43:26: "arise, O Lord, help us." Second, his emptying of himself: not indeed that he laid aside the majesty of his dignity, but that he concealed it, by assuming smallness; Isaiah 45:15: "verily thou art a hidden God." And this is signified in that he lays aside his garments; Philippians 2:7: "he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant." Third, the assumption of our mortality in that he girded himself with a towel; Philippians 2:7: "taking the form of a servant, made in the likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man." But if it is referred to the passion of Christ, then according to the letter he laid aside his garments when the soldiers stripped him, and cast lots upon his vesture, below in chapter 19:24. Then also he was girded with a linen cloth in the tomb. In the passion also he laid aside the garments of our mortality, and took up the linen cloth, that is, the brightness of immortality; Romans 6:9: "Christ rising from the dead, dieth now no more: death shall no more have dominion over him." Next, when he says then he poured water into a basin, and so on, he sets forth the office of Christ, in which his humility is commended as to three things. First, as to the kind of service; which was exceedingly humble, that the Lord of majesty should bow himself down to wash the feet of servants. Second, as to the fullness of the service, because he poured water into the basin, washed the feet, and wiped them, and so on. Third, as to the manner of doing it, because he did it not through others, nor with the help of others, but through himself. Ecclesiasticus 3:20: "the greater thou art, humble thyself in all things." Now mystically, three things can be understood by these actions. For first, by his pouring water into the basin is signified the pouring out of his blood upon the earth. For the blood of Jesus can be called water, because it has a washing power; Apocalypse 1:5: "he washed us from our sins in his own blood." And hence it is that water and blood came forth together from his side, so that it might be understood that that blood was a washer-away of sins. Or by the water can be understood the passion of Christ: for in Scripture water signifies tribulations, Psalm 68:2: "save me, O God, for the waters are come in even unto my soul," that is, tribulations. He poured, then, water into the basin, that is, he impressed the memory of the passion upon the souls of the faithful through faith and devotion; Lamentations 3:19: "remember my poverty, and my transgression, the wormwood and the gall." Second, by his saying and he began to wash, human imperfection is suggested: for the apostles, though more perfect than others after Christ, nevertheless needed washing, having certain uncleannesses. So that it might be understood that however perfect a man may be, he nonetheless still needs to be made more perfect, and contracts certain uncleannesses, according to that saying of Proverbs 20:9: "who can say: my heart is clean, I am pure from sin?" Yet such persons have these uncleannesses only in the feet. But certain others are not only unclean in the feet, but are wholly infected. For those are wholly defiled by earthly uncleannesses who lie prostrate upon them; hence those who cling wholly, both in affection and in sense, to the love of earthly things, are wholly unclean. But those who stand, that is, who tend with mind and desire toward heavenly things, contract uncleanness only in the feet. For just as a man standing must at least touch the ground with his feet, so as long as we live in this mortal life, which needs earthly things for the sustenance of the body, we contract at least something on the part of sensuality. And therefore the Lord commanded the disciples, Luke 9:5, that they should shake off the dust from their feet. Now he said he began to wash, because the washing away of earthly affections begins here, and is completed in the future. For then will be fulfilled what is said in Isaiah 35:8: "it shall be called the holy way." But it must be noted, according to Origen, that he began to wash the feet of the disciples as the passion was drawing near, because if he had washed them long before, they would have become soiled again. Hence he began then, because shortly after he was going to wash them with the water of the Holy Spirit, namely after the passion; Acts 1:5: "but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." Thus, then, the pouring forth of his blood appears through his pouring water into the basin; and the washing away of our sins through his beginning to wash the feet of the disciples. There appears, third, the taking upon himself of our punishments: for he did not only wash away our stains, but took upon himself the punishments owed for them. For our punishments and penances would not suffice, unless they were grounded in the merit and power of Christ's passion. And this indeed appears in that he wiped the feet of the disciples with a towel, namely of his own body: 1 Peter 2:21. Next, when he says he cometh therefore to Simon Peter, and so on, he sets forth the usefulness of the example through a certain contention between disciple and master: in which contention indeed the Lord shows concerning this example, first, that it is mystical and that it is necessary, at the place Peter saith to him: thou shalt never wash my feet; second, that it is fitting, at the place Simon Peter saith to him: Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. Concerning the first he does two things. First the occasion for the words of Christ is set forth; second the words of Christ themselves are appended, at the place Jesus answered, and said to him, and so on. Now the occasion of the words of Christ was the refusal of Peter, refusing to accept the example of humility; and this is what is said, he cometh therefore to Simon Peter, and so on. This indeed is explained in three ways. First, according to Origen, that the Lord began to wash from the last. And this because, just as a physician, intent on the cure of very many sick persons, begins his own care from those who are most in need, so also Christ, who washes the filthy feet of the disciples, begins from those who were more filthy, and thus comes to Peter as one less in need than the others; Matthew 20:8: "beginning from the last even to the first." And this indeed the words of the Gospel seem to suggest: he began to wash the feet of the disciples, and afterward follows he cometh therefore to Simon Peter. From which it seems that he first washed the feet of the others. But if it is asked why Peter, more than the others, refused this, Origen answers that he did this on account of the excessive fervor of love which he had for Christ. For the other disciples, with a certain fear, revered Christ, and therefore endured whatever was done without discussion. But Peter, more fervent than they, according to that saying of John, last chapter, 15: "Simon, son of Jona, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee," taking confidence from love, refuses to bear the deed and inquires the reason; Ecclesiasticus 6:11: "if a friend continue steadfast, he shall be to thee as thyself, and shall act with confidence among them of thy household." And therefore Peter is found in Scripture frequently inquiring, and promptly bringing forth what seems better to him. Second, it is explained, according to Chrysostom, namely that Christ began first to wash the feet from the first of the apostles. But because that betrayer was foolish and proud, namely Judas, he reclined first for the washing of the feet, before Peter. For none of the others would have dared to go before Peter. Hence the Evangelist speaks of Judas, saying he began to wash the feet of the disciples, namely of Judas, who indeed, being proud and foolish, in no way resisted, nor refused to bear what the Lord was doing. But after he came to Peter, who revered and loved the master, he refuses with fear, and inquires the reason for the deed: and any of the others would have done the same. Third, it is explained, according to Augustine, that from the words of the Evangelist we ought not to understand that the Lord first washed the feet of the other disciples, and afterward came to Peter; but that the Evangelist, according to his custom, first sets down the deed, and afterward narrates the order of the deed, just as also above, in chapter 6, he does. Hence he first suggests the whole deed, namely that he washed the feet of the disciples; and afterward, if it is asked how the deed was done, he says that he first came to Simon Peter. And therefore Peter first refused, saying Lord, dost thou wash my feet? Which words indeed carry great weight. Lord, he says, thou, who art the Son of the living God, washest my feet? I who am Simon Bar-Jona, that is, Simon son of John, Matthew 16:17. Again: Lord, thou, who art the spotless lamb, the mirror without stain, and the brightness of eternal light, washest my feet, I who am a sinful man? According to that saying of Luke 5:8: "depart from me, for I am a sinful man." Lord, thou, who art the creator, washest my feet, I who am a creature, and of little faith? Peter said these things, terrified from the consideration of the majesty of Christ, according to that saying of Habakkuk 3:1: "I considered thy works, and was afraid." Next, when he says Jesus answered, and so on, the words of Christ are set forth, from which it is shown that that deed is mystical. Hence he said to him what I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter. This deed indeed is both an example and a mystery. It is indeed an example of humanity to be shown; below, in the same place: for I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you also should do. But it is a mystery of interior cleansing. Below, in the same place: he that is washed needeth not but to wash his feet, and so on. In two ways, then, can this saying what I do be understood. In one way, what I do, that is, the manner in which I act as an example, thou knowest not now, that is, thou dost not understand, but thou shalt know hereafter, namely then when he explained it to them, saying: know you what I have done to you? Below, in the same place. In another way, what I do, thou knowest not now; that is, this is a mystery, and it is a secret, and it signifies an interior cleansing, which cannot be brought about except through me, which thou dost not understand now, but thou shalt know hereafter, namely when receiving the Holy Spirit; below, chapter 16:12: "I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth." Next, when he says Peter saith to him, and so on, he shows that deed to be mystical, and first he sets forth the words of Peter furnishing the occasion for the words of Christ; second he adds the words of Christ. He says therefore first, Peter, thou shalt never wash my feet, that is, never. As if he should say: far be it from me that I should endure this from my master, my Lord and my God. And although Peter did this out of zeal, nevertheless his zeal was indiscreet and disordered; Romans 10:2: "they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge." Which zeal indeed was disordered on account of three things: because he refuses what was useful and necessary: for, as is said in Romans 3:26, "we know not what we should pray for as we ought"; and therefore we indiscreetly refuse to receive what God bestows on us, even if it should seem contrary. So also Paul sought the removal of the thorn, 2 Corinthians 12:8, which was nevertheless useful to him. Again, because it seems to carry a certain irreverence toward Christ, in that he wishes to break his ordinance. Again, because it seems to tend toward a disparagement of his companions, since what the others, according to Origen, had received from Christ without contradiction, he himself refused to accept, saying thou shalt never wash my feet. And therefore the Lord rebuked him, saying if I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me: which indeed can be referred to two things, namely to the deed which Christ was doing, and to what it signified. But if indeed it is referred to what is signified, then what is said is plain. For no one can become a partaker of the eternal inheritance and co-heir of Christ, unless he be spiritually cleansed: because this is said in Apocalypse 21:27: "there shall not enter into it any thing defiled." In Psalm 14:1: "Lord, who shall dwell in thy tabernacle?" And in answer it adds: "innocent in hands, and clean of heart." As if then he should say if I wash thee not, thou shalt not be clean, and, if thou art not clean, thou shalt not have a part with me. But if it is referred to the deed, then it is doubtful whether this washing is necessary for salvation. To which it must be said, that just as certain things are forbidden because they are evil, and certain things are evil because they are forbidden, so certain things are commanded because they are necessary, and certain things are necessary because they are commanded. This deed of washing, then, of which the Lord says if I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me, considered in itself is not necessary for salvation, but, granted that it is commanded by Christ, it has thereby become necessary; 1 Kings 15:22: "obedience is better than sacrifices"; and thus: to be unwilling to acquiesce is as it were the crime of idolatry. Here he shows that deed to be fitting. And first the words of Peter are set forth; second the response of Christ is added. But in the words of Peter is suggested his most fervent love for Christ. For above, when the Lord said to him what I do thou knowest not now, he had given him to understand that this deed would be useful; yet, this usefulness having been set aside, he could not be brought to accept the washing of the feet. But when the Lord threatened him with separation from himself, saying thou shalt have no part with me, he offered himself not only to those things, but to receive even further things, saying Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. For in this answer, terrified, he offers his whole self to be washed, disturbed by love and by fear. For as is read in the Itinerary of Clement, Peter was so affected toward the bodily presence of Christ, whom he had loved most fervently, that after Christ's ascension, when he remembered that most sweet presence and most holy converse, he would be wholly dissolved into tears, so that his cheeks seemed scorched. Now it must be known that in man there are three things: the head, which is the highest; the feet, which are the lowest; the hands, which are the middle. And likewise in the interior man, namely in the soul, there is a head, namely the higher reason, by which the soul clings to God, 1 Corinthians 11:3: "the head of the woman is the man," that is, the higher reason; and hands, that is, the lower reason, which occupies itself with the works of the active life; and the feet are the sensuality. But the Lord knew his disciples to be clean as to the head, because they were joined to God through faith and charity; and as to the hands, because of their holy works; but as to the feet, some of them had certain affections for earthly things arising from sensuality. Peter, then, fearing the threat of Christ, consents not only to the washing of the feet, but also of the hands and the head, saying Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. As if he should say: I know not whether I need the washing of hand and head, for I am conscious of nothing in myself; but I am not hereby justified: 1 Corinthians 4:4; and therefore I am ready to wash not only the feet, that is, the lower affections, Song of Songs 5:3: "I have washed my feet, how shall I defile them?" but also the hands, that is, the works, Psalm 25:6: "I will wash my hands among the innocent"; and the head, that is, the higher reason, Matthew 6:17: "wash thy face." Next, when he says Jesus saith to them, the response of the Lord is set forth, and first he gives a certain general teaching; second he adapts it to the matter at hand, at the place and you are clean, but not all; third the Evangelist explains the words of Christ, at the place for he knew who he was that would betray him. He says therefore first: he that is washed needeth not but to wash his feet, but is clean wholly; understand, except for the feet, by which he touches the ground. By which it is given to be understood that the apostles were already baptized. For he says he that is washed, and so on, and afterward adds you are clean, and so on, namely because they had been baptized. But some say that they had been baptized only with the baptism of John; which does not seem true, because in that case they would not have been washed, for the baptism of John did not cleanse interiorly from guilt. And therefore it must be said that they had been baptized with the baptism of Christ, according to Augustine. And if you object that Christ did not baptize, but his disciples, as is said above in chapter 4:2, I say that he did not baptize the crowds; but he baptized his own disciples, who were familiar and of his household. But since baptism washes away even the filth of the feet, it seems that he that is washed, that is, baptized, does not need to have his feet washed. But to this it must be said, that if they had passed from this world immediately after baptism, they would certainly not have needed this washing, because, being wholly clean, they would have flown away at once. But those who after baptism live in this mortal life cannot ascend to so great a summit of perfection that disordered movements of sensuality do not arise from earthly affections; and therefore it is necessary that they wash their feet, either through martyrdom, which is the baptism of blood, or through penance, which is the baptism of desire, so that they may be able to fly away. Next, when he says and you are clean, but not all, the Lord adapts the general teaching to the matter at hand. But if they were clean, why did the Lord again wash them? To which Augustine says that they were clean as to hands and head, but were in need as to the feet. Chrysostom, however, says that they were clean not indeed absolutely, because they were not yet clean from original uncleanness, since Christ had not yet suffered, and the price of our redemption had not yet been paid; but as to something, they were clean, namely from the errors of the Jews. Origen, however, says that they were clean, but there was still need of a greater cleansing, because reason ought always to be zealous for the better gifts, ought always to climb the heights of virtues, to shine with the brightness of righteousness; Apocalypse, last chapter, 2: "he that is holy, let him be sanctified still." But not all: because one of them had both head and hands unclean. And therefore next the Evangelist sets forth the words of the Lord, saying for he knew who he was that would betray him, as if he should say: he therefore said not all, because he knew the uncleanness of Judas the betrayer. For two things universally cleanse a man: namely almsgiving and mercy toward the poor, Luke 11:41: "give alms, and behold, all things are clean unto you," and the love of God: Luke 7:47: "many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much"; Proverbs 10:12: "charity covereth all sins." For these two were lacking in Judas. Mercy indeed, because he was a thief, and having the purse, he used to defraud the alms of the poor. Likewise love toward Christ, because already the devil had put it into his heart to betray him to the chief priests, to be crucified, and so on.”

““ Peter says to Him , Thou shalt never wash my feet.” Origin accuses Peter of headstrong audacity and disobedience, but S. Augustine (Tract. 56) rightly excuses him, inasmuch as this speech of his showed profound faith, reverence, fear, humility, and love. “ I ” (the words are St. Cyprian's in his treatise on the washing of the feet), “I am ready to die with Thee, if needs be, for this I ought to do, this fate I embrace. For Thee I will gladly present my neck to the executioner ; but my God and my Lord prostrate at my feet, this I suffer not, this I dare not endure.” Digitized by v^iOOQLe TT. 52 Jesus answered him , If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with Me. First , S. Augustine takes this mystically. Unless I wash away thy venial sins by penance I will not give thee the Eucharist, which I am about to institute, neither shalt thou enter heaven, for nothing that is defiled can enter there. So, too, St. Cyprian in his treatise on the washing of feet. Secondly , according to SS. Chrysostom and Cyril : Unless thou receive the lesson of humility which I give thee in this washing of feet, thou shalt have no part with Me, for only the humble attain to the grace and glory of God. Thirdly , according to the letter: If thou, O Peter, persistest in thy disobedience, thou shalt not communicate with Me in the Eucharistic table, — I will give thee no part of the bread that is about to be consecrated into My body, — I will not have thee for My familiar friend and the companion of My sacred table. Christ threatens Peter with the loss of His intimate friendship and of the Eucharist, not the loss of His grace and glory ; for though Peter was loth to obey, yet this arose from his profound humility and reverence, and was, therefore, worthy of pardon. Toletus says: He threatened not to give Peter the Eucharist by which Christ was to abide in him and he in Christ ; for it was chiefly for this that He washed their feet, so that they might be clean and fitly prepared to receive Him when He should give Himself to them and be really united to them. Peter did not distinctly understand what Christ said at the time, but only understood that he was to be cut off from Christ and have nothing in common with Him unless he underwent this washing; afterwards, however, he comprehended the mystery. There is a similar expression in 3 Kings xii. 16, where the people, exasperated by the cruelty of Roboam, say, “ What part have we in David ? or what inheritance in the son of Jesse ?” S. Basil, in his “ Discourse on Sin,” says, “ For this reason threats of this kind were held out by Christ against Peter, that unless he had rectified his will by promptitude and quickening of obedience, not those wonderful blessings which had come to him from God, not his gifts, not the promises made to him, not even that declaration of Digitized by v^iOOQLe nature oe true obedience. S3 such and so great a yearning towards the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father, would have served him to expiate his actual disobedience.” Hence S. Basil draws from this two remarkable rules of conduct : — 44 He that opposes himself to the commands of God, even though he do so with a pious and friendly intention, such an one is nevertheless for this cause estranged from the Lord.” And the second is : — “ Whatever is said by the Lord, that ought we to receive with all the fulness of our heart.” (Reg. xii. ch. 2.) Simon Peter says to Himy Lordy not only my feet% but also my hands and my head Struck by the threat of Christ as by a thunderbolt, Peter obeys, and offers more than Christ had asked. Hence S. Basil in his Shorter Rules, 60th Answer, gives a useful rule : — 44 Whatever we have before resolved upon beside that which is commanded by the Lord must be rescinded. This is plainly shown in the case of the Apostle Peter, who had first resolved 4 Thou shalt never wash my feet/ but when he heard the Lord say positively, 4 Unless I wash thee, thou shalt have no part with Me/ straightway changed his mind and said, * Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands.’ ” Again, in the 233rd Answer, St Basil teaches us from this text that obedience is to be preferred to all the other virtues. 44 Peter,” he says, 44 although the Lord had borne him witness of such and so great meritorious acts, and had called him and pronounced him blessed in so singular a manner, yet, having in one point only seemed to turn aside from obedience, and that too not from negligence or pride, but from reverence and respect to his Lord, — for this and this only is it said to him, 4 Unless I wash thy feet, thou shalt have no part with Me.’ ””

“Peter saith unto him, thou shall never wash my feet,.... Before he had behaved with modesty, but now with obstinacy and perverseness; and though these expressions might arise from great reverence to Christ, yet they were wrong and rashly spoken. Peter ought to have been satisfied with Christ's reply, and have submitted, since though he then did not know the reason of such surprising conduct, he should hereafter. In order therefore to bring him to a compliance, Jesus answered him, if I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me; he does not say, if I wash not thy feet, but thee, meaning not with water, but with his blood, and by his Spirit; for Christ uses the word wash here, not literally, but in a mystical and figurative sense, and takes an occasion, as he sometimes does, from things natural, to discourse of things spiritual: moreover, he does not say, thou hast no part "in" me, but thou hast no part "with" me, that is, no fellowship and communion with me; see Co2 6:14; and it is as if he should say, Peter, if I had not washed thee with the washing of regeneration by my Spirit, and if I should not shed my blood for thee, and wash thee in it from thy sins, sad would be thy case; thou couldest have no communion with me in this world, nor any part and portion with me in the heavenly inheritance hereafter. Hence it may be observed, that unless a man is washed by Christ, he can have no part with him in this, or the other world. God's elect have a part, an interest in Christ through eternal, electing, and covenant grace, and in consequence of this are washed by Christ both with his blood, and with the washing of regeneration: and this is done in order that they may have a part with Christ, spiritual fellowship with him now, and possess with him the undefiled inheritance, when time shall be no more.”

“If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me - Thou canst not be my disciple unless I wash thee. It is certain Christ did not mean to exclude him from the apostolic office, if he should persist, through the deepest reverence for his Master, to refuse to let him wash his feet: this act of his was emblematical of something spiritual; of something that concerned the salvation of Peter; and without which washing he could neither be an apostle or be finally saved; therefore our Lord said, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. There is a mystical washing by the blood of Christ, Jo1 1:7; and by his Spirit, Co1 6:11; Tit 3:5, Tit 3:6. It was the common custom of our Lord to pass from sensible and temporal things to those which were spiritual and eternal; and to take occasion from every thing that presented itself, to instruct his disciples, and to raise their souls to God. If the discourse was of bread, water, leaven, father, mother, riches, etc., he immediately changed the literal sense, and under the figure of these things, spoke of matters altogether spiritual and Divine. I have met with many good persons who have attempted to imitate our blessed Lord in this, but I never knew one to succeed in it. The reason is, it requires not only very deep piety, but sound sense, together with an accurate knowledge of the nature and properties of the subjects which, in this way, the person wishes to illustrate; and very few can be found who have such deep, philosophical knowledge as such cases require. The large folio which a good-intentioned man printed on the metaphors is, alas! a standing proof how little mere piety can do in matters of this kind, where the sciences, and especially practical philosophy, are totally wanting. Jesus Christ was a consummate philosopher: every subject appears grand and noble in his hands. See an ample proof in the preceding chapter, Joh 12:24 (note).”

“Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash, &c.--more emphatically, "Never shalt Thou wash my feet": that is, "That is an incongruity to which I can never submit." How like the man! If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me--What Peter could not submit to was, that the Master should serve His servant. But the whole saving work of Christ was one continued series of such services, ending with and consummated by the most self-sacrificing and transcendent of all services: THE SON OF MAN CAME not to be ministered unto, but TO MINISTER, AND TO GIVE HIS LIFE A RANSOM FOR MANY. (See on Mar 10:45). If Peter then could not submit to let his Master go down so low as to wash his feet, how should he suffer himself to be served by Him at all? This is couched under the one pregnant word "wash," which though applicable to the lower operation which Peter resisted, is the familiar scriptural symbol of that higher cleansing, which Peter little thought he was at the same time virtually putting from him. It is not humility to refuse what the Lord deigns to do for us, or to deny what He has done, but it is self-willed presumption--not rare, however, in those inner circles of lofty religious profession and traditional spirituality, which are found wherever Christian truth has enjoyed long and undisturbed possession. The truest humility is to receive reverentially, and thankfully to own, the gifts of grace.”