The second water jar is the consideration of the deficiency of vigilance against the enemy: 2 Corinthians 11: But I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his craftiness, so your minds should be corrupted and fall from the simplicity that is in Christ.
The third is the consideration of the deficiency of interior consolation: Jeremiah 2: See how evil and bitter it is that thou hast forsaken the Lord thy God.
The fourth is the consideration of the deficiency of strength to resist: Psalm: My strength hath forsaken me, and the light of mine eyes, even that is not with me. The fifth is the consideration of the deficiency of stability to persevere: Genesis 8: The sense and thought of man are prone to evil from his youth.
The sixth is the consideration of the deficiency of assurance for hoping; Ecclesiastes 9: Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love or of hatred.
Then these waterpots are filled to the brim with water, when the penitent soul washes its bed each night through these considerations. And from the water is made the finest wine of devotion, concerning which Zechariah 9 says: What is his good, and what is his beauty, but the grain of the elect and the wine that brings forth virgins ? Into this the water of compunction is converted; whence the holy soul says in the Psalm: Thou hast turned my mourning into joy for me.
QUESTIONS.
14. Here a question arises among the expositors.
Question I. First, concerning the time of the wedding: for it is said by some that it took place on the same day on which the Lord was baptized. But how can this stand, since it is said that it took place on the third day, after the Lord came from Judea?
They respond that it was on the same day, but a year later.
But then the following text contradicts this: for it is said below in the same chapter that he went down to Capernaum, and that he did not remain there long, because the Passover was near: therefore these nuptials took place near the Passover, and therefore not at Epiphany.
But if this is conceded, the custom of the Church is to the contrary, because the Church celebrates three feasts on the same day.
I respond: It must be said that, as has been stated, there are diverse opinions here, and each is probable and can be sustained. For if we wish to maintain that this miracle took place after the baptism of the Lord and his return from the desert and his coming into Galilee, we shall say that it was near the Passover. — Nor does the custom of the Church stand in the way, because the Church celebrates these three together — concerning the star and the dove and the changing of the wine — because the Lord first became known through these three; or because the changing of the water signifies the regenerative power conferred upon the waters when the Lord was baptized. — But if we wish to maintain the other opinion, we shall respond that when it is said that after this he went down to Capernaum, it should be understood that it was not immediately after this, but with some time intervening, such that the Passover was approaching.
15. Question II. The question is about whose wedding it was. — And that it was John's is said in the Prologue above, and Augustine likewise said in the Gloss on the beginning. — But against this, Victor objects: "Since virginity is the meditation upon perpetual incorruption, it is not to be believed that John, to whom testimony of virginity is given, ever consented to an act of the flesh."
To this it must be responded that because greater authority concurs on this point, it should be held that it was John's wedding. And a sign of this can be gathered from the text: because John was a kinsman of the Lord, and for this reason he and his Mother were invited to the wedding.
Therefore what Victor objects is resolved in two ways: in one way, that he did not consent to an act of the flesh or to carnal union absolutely, but, like the Virgin Mary, he committed himself to the disposition of the Holy Spirit, so that thus the virgin, who was to be the guardian of the Virgin, might agree with the Virgin in the manner of virginity.
Alternatively it is answered that, granted that he consented absolutely, his virtue was not diminished, because he consented licitly; similarly the dignity of virginity was not diminished, because, since virginity denotes the incorruption of mind and flesh, it can be lost in three ways: either the incorruption of both is lost, and then it is lost eternally and temporally; or the incorruption of the mind alone is lost, and then it is lost recoverably; or the incorruption of the body alone, and then it is lost temporally but not eternally, because such a one will have the glory of virginity; but nevertheless, as Pope Leo says, such persons ought not to count themselves among the sacred virgins. Since therefore John remained incorrupt in the flesh, even if his mind consented, he afterward returned to the same state.
16. Question III. It is asked concerning this, that the Lord willed to go to the wedding. — And it seems that He ought not to have done so. For if the place of a wedding is a place of feasting, and the Lord Himself ought to have fled all feasting, then He ought not to have gone there.
I respond: It must be said that He went in order to establish faith and to uproot heresy. He confirmed the faith of the disciples who had been called through the miracle, and He also gained the faith of the bridegroom. He uprooted heresy, namely that of Julian, who condemns marriage. Against which the Lord willed to be present and to confirm and approve marriage by a miracle. But if the Lord, having been invited, had refused to go, then He would have seemed to have favored that heresy and to have condemned marriage.
17. Question IV. It is asked concerning the Lord's response to His Mother: What is it to Me and to you, woman? My hour has not yet come.
1. For either the divine Virgin was asking what ought to be asked, or what ought not to be asked. If she was asking what ought to be asked, then He ought not to have responded to her so sharply. If she was asking what ought not to be asked, then He ought not to have heard her request.
2. Likewise, what does it mean that He says: My hour has not yet come ? For either it had come, and thus He speaks falsely; or it had not come, and thus He acts wrongly, because He acts before the hour.
3. Likewise, from this the heretics argue that the Lord was subject to fate and the stars.
I respond: It must be said that the Lord's response was not insulting, but instructive. For he shows by what reason he satisfies his Mother who petitions. Whence three things are considered in the petition: the one petitioning, and this is the Mother of the Lord; for whom she petitions, namely for poor relatives; what she petitions, namely a miracle. The Lord shows in his response that she ought not to petition this as mother: because he could not do this from the nature drawn from her, therefore he says to her woman, he does not say mother. She ought not to petition for relatives, as though having care for carnal kinsmen: therefore he says: What is it to me and to you? He shows that a miracle is not to be performed on account of need, but for manifesting his glory, for the manifesting of which there was not yet necessity: therefore he says: My hour has not yet come. Yet because the woman petitioning was holy: because those for whom she was petitioning were poor: because his glory was to be manifested to the disciples: therefore he hears her.
2. As to what is objected concerning the hour, it must be understood that the hour of perfect manifestation had not yet come, such as occurred around his death: concerning the hour, Augustine says, not the hour in which he would be compelled to die, but in which he would deign to be slain: whence below in the tenth chapter: I have the power to lay down my life, and no one takes it from me.
The second manifestation, which was made to the Jews.