6. Here the Evangelist goes on to state in detail what happened when our Lord presented Himself first of all before Peter. Thus we need not suppose that our Lord had washed the feet of any other disciple before He came to Peter. St. Peter almost always stands first among the Apostles, and on the present occasion, the remonstrance would naturally come from the first person at whose feet our Lord presented Himself. “There is nothing to support the old notion that the action began with Judas. It is more natural to suppose that the Lord began with St. Peter. In that case his refusal to accept the services is more intelligible than it would be if others had already accepted it” (Westc. in _The Speaker’s Commentary_). *Dost thou wash my feet?* The position of the pronouns in the Greek brings out sharply the contrast of the persons. 7. Respondit Iesus, et dixit 7. Jesus answered, and said to ei: Quod ego facio, tu nescis him: What I do, thou knowest modo, scies autem postea. not now, but thou shalt know hereafter. 7. Peter, bewildered by His Divine Master’s condescension, is told that he shall afterwards learn the moral significance of what Jesus was about to do. 8. Dicit ei Petrus: Non 8. Peter said to him: Thou lavabis mihi pedes in shalt never wash my feet. aeternum. Respondit ei Iesus: Jesus answered him: If I wash Si non lavero te, non habebis thee not, thou shalt have no partem mecum. part with me. 8. Strong in faith, and mindful of the dignity of his Master, with that impetuosity which displayed itself on other occasions, Peter declares that he will never consent to such an act of self‐abasement on the part of his Lord. Christ at once replies to him: *If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me.* The meaning is, that if Peter refused obedience to Christ’s wish, now distinctly made known to him in these words, he should be excluded from Christ’s society here and hereafter. Complete surrender of his will to Christ was a necessary condition of discipleship. The washing of the feet here referred to is not a sacrament; the practice of the Church makes this clear. Besides, it cannot be shown that grace was annexed to it. No doubt, without it Peter was to have no part with Christ; but this, we hold, would be the effect of disobedience, not the result of wanting anything which the washing could bestow. In reality, Peter was already in the state of grace, for in the tenth verse Jesus tells the Apostles that they are _clean_; and though He qualifies the statement by saying that all are not clean, yet St. John explains this qualification in reference to Judas only. Hence Peter was already in the state of grace, and there is nothing in the text or context to show that he was to obtain grace if his feet were washed, but only that he was to lose it if they were not.