2.  He once in Cana of Galilee, turned the water into wine, akin to blood οἰκεῖον αἵματι.  Cod. Scirlet. (Grodecq), Mesm. (Morel), Vindob.; Ben. Ed. οἰκείῳ νεύματι, Codd. Monac. 1, 2, Genovef. Vatt. (Prevot.). Rupp.  The whole passage is omitted in Codd. Coisl. R. Casaub. owing to the repetition of αἷμα The reading οἰκείῳ νεύματι, “by His own will,” introduces a superfluous thought, and destroys the very point of Cyril’s argument, in which the previous change of water into an element so different as wine is regarded as giving an a fortiori probability to the change of that which is already “akin to blood” into blood itself. If Cyril thus seems to teach a physical change of the wine, it must be remembered that we are not bound to accept his view, but only to state it accurately.  See however the section of the Introduction on his Eucharistic doctrine., and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood?  When called to a bodily marriage, He miraculously wrought ἐθαυματούργησε τὴν παραδοξοποιίαν.  Cf. Chrysost. Epist. I. ad Olympiad. de Deo, § 1, c.:  τότε θαυματουργεῖ καὶ παραδοξοποιεῖ. that wonderful work; and on the children of the bride-chamber Matt. ix. 15., shall He not much rather be acknowledged to have bestowed the fruition of His Body and Blood Ben. Ed.:  “That the force of Cyril’s argument may be the better understood, we must observe that in Baptism is celebrated the marriage of Christ with the Christian soul; and that the consummation of this marriage is perfected through the union of bodies in the mystery of the Eucharist.  Read Chrysostom’s Hom. xx. in Ephes.”  Chrysostom’s words are:  “In like manner therefore we become one flesh with Christ by participation (μετουσίας).”  But the participation expressed by μετουσία does not necessarily refer to the Eucharist.  From the use of the word in Cat. xxiii. 11, and in Athanasius (Contra Arianos, Or. i.; de Synodis. 19, 22, 25) the meaning rather seems to be that we are one flesh with Christ not by nature but by His gift.?