47. This miracle, mentioned only in the Gospel of St. John, is indicated as being the first that Jesus had performed; and under this title it ought to have been so much to more remarked upon; but it seems to have produced very little sensation, as no other evangelist mentions it. Such an extraordinary fact ought to have astonished the guests to the highest degree, and, above all, the host himself, who, it seems, had not even perceived it.
Considered by itself, this fact has little importance comparatively with those which truly testify of the spiritual qualities of Jesus. By admitting that things have taken place as they are reported to have done, it is remarkable that it is the sole phenomenon of this kind which he has produced. He was of a nature too elevated to attach himself to purely material effects, calculated solely to attract the curiosity of the crowd, who would have confounded him with a magician. He knew that useful things would obtain him more sympathy, and obtain for his cause more converts than those which could pass for a juggler’s tricks, and touch not the heart (n° 27).
However, the act may be clearly explained up to a certain point, to which fluidic-action as well as magnetism offers some examples of having the power of changing the properties of water by giving it the taste of wine; but this hypothesis is not very probable, as in a case of this kind the water has not been of the color of wine, which could not have failed in being remarked. It is more rational to see in it one of those parables so frequent in the teachings of Jesus, like that of the “prodigal son,” “the marriage feast,” “the dry fig-tree,” “the parable of the bad rich man,” and many others. He made during the repast an allusion to the wine and water, whence he would have evoked a moral. That which justifies this opinion are the words which have been spoken in regard to it by the ruler of the feast, — “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”
Between these two hypothesis, one should prefer the most rational; Spiritists are not so credulous as to see manifestations everywhere, neither are they so conclusive in their opinions as to wish to explain everything by means of fluids.