Index To All Nine Sections You Are Here  Part I - Historical Background. Is the orthodox version of one God in three persons an unassailable and inviolable doctrine straight from the pages of Scripture? Not exactly! This incomprehensible doctrine was formally adopted in 381 AD as a defense against charges that Christians worshipped more than one God. It prevailed because it satisfied a number of requirements and gave the church a nice tidy solution. Yet, although unknown to the Scriptures, it somehow evolved into a litmus test for true faith. Part II - ‘Proof Texts’. Passages that supposedly "prove" the trinity. Part III - The Grammar. Can the grammar legitimately be used to support the idea that the Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Trinity? Part IV - The Deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. The Bible very clearly shows that Christ is God AND ascribes Divinity to the Holy Spirit which leads to the question... Part V - Can God be more than one? Part VI - What is The Holy Spirit? - A separate person, or the Divine presence and power of the Father Himself? Part VII - The Cappadocian Fathers. The doctrine of the trinity that has remained virtually unchanged to this day found its roots in paganism not the Bible. This largely due to the part played by the Cappadocian Fathers - three ancient Greek philosophers and mystics. Part VIII - Begotten Vs. Proceeds. The Son is "begotten" of the Father and the Spirit "proceeds" from the Father. Different? Certainly! But not what The Cappadocian Fathers made it out to be Part IX - Summary and Conclusion
ON THIS PAGE
The Doctrine
Historical Background
Why The Doctrine Prevailed Either/Or Theology
A Commonly Used Litmus Test For Defining 'True Belief'
An "Incomprehensible" Doctrine And An Unreasonable Untenable Position
(The church’s often intellectually elitist, highbrow and arrogant views) We Believe So Many Wrong Things Because We Rely On Others To Decide What We Should Believe
And Not Meticulously Checking Everything We Have Been Told
The Doctrine
The doctrine of the trinity is one of mainstream Christianity's most universally accepted and hallowed doctrines held sacrosanct by Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox believers alike. The word comes from the Latin trinitas - a combination of the numerical prefix "tri" (three) and "unitas" (meaning unity or oneness). In other words - a triunity, a word that could describe any group of three affiliated people.
From about the 4th century AD, the standard position of the church is that the trinity is only one God who exists as three distinct but equal Divine Persons which is very different from Tritheism (three separate Gods), or Modalism (one God performing three separate functions as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit). Each member of the Trinity - the Father (the Ancient of Days); the Son (incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth); and the Holy Spirit (the Paraclete) exists as a coequal member of the Godhead sharing a single Divine essence or nature. All three are uncreated, limitless, eternal, and omnipotent. Seeing God as one and three at the same time is obviously a contradiction that Christian scholars are almost forced to offer some kind of explanation for - regardless of how convoluted or far fetched. Take for example, Matt Perman's (former director of strategy at desiringgod.org) claim that God is not one and three in the same way. "How is God one? He is one in essence. How is God three? He is three in Person. Essence and person are not the same thing. God is one in a certain way (essence) and three in a different way (person). Since God is one in a different way than He is three, the Trinity is not a contradiction. There would only be a contradiction if we said that God is three in the same way that He is one". [00]
Although most people cannot wrap their heads around this kind of convoluted, even tortuous explanation, the vast majority of Christians believe the trinity to be an unassailable and inviolable doctrine that comes straight from the pages of Scripture itself. But does it?
Historical Background
Those who may believe that the doctrine of the trinity has existed in its present form from the time of the first apostles may be surprised to learn that it hasn’t. The doctrine actually came to fruition in stages beginning in the late first century, then gradually gained momentum in the subsequent three hundred years or so, taking final shape in 381 AD. under the influence of very questionable men.
In a letter written to a pagan friend Autolycus (Apology to Autolycus 2:15) Theophilus the 7th Bishop of Antioch (c. 169–c. 183), used the Greek "he trias" (the Triad) to refer to God, God's Logos (Jesus), and God's Sophia (Holy Spirit). However, it was probably Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225 AD), a prolific early Christian author from Carthage and the oldest extant Latin writer, who first used the Latin word trinitas to refer to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. See Footnote on Tertullian It was finally affirmed as an article of faith by the Nicene-Constantinopolitan (325/381) and Athanasian creeds (circa 500), both of which attempted to standardize belief in the face of differing opinions.
The final form was aimed at countering claims that Christians worshipped three gods. Note however that the Ecumenical Councils pretty much made it up as they went along. Origen whose statements more often than not flatly contradicted Scripture, more than once affirmed that Mary remained a virgin throughout life. He in fact, used the expression Theotokos (Mother of God) to refer to Mary. This designation was raised to a "dogmatic standard" by the 431 A.D. Council of Ephesus. The second Council of Constantinople in 553 A.D. added the title "Eternal Virgin." [01] Origen’s other anti Biblical statements and his role in the formation of the doctrine of the Trinity is covered in Part 7
Why The Doctrine Prevailed
This orthodox version of one God in three persons prevailed because it satisfied a number of requirements.
a) It cleared the church against the multi-god accusation, albeit with a very intricate and complicated explanation. b) Since no Bible verse explicitly states the exact nature of the Holy Spirit, the doctrine could be considered 'safe'. And, finally c) It allowed the church to happily go about their business under the impression that they had solved the dilemma of seemingly contradictory statements in the Bible.
As far as they were concerned... they had a nice tidy solution. The difficulty was resolved, and the case could be closed! However, the fact that the conclusion did not follow from, nor agree with, all the evidence was ignored. Defending Monotheism
Alister McGrath, historian, Christian theologian, and author of several books on theology and history, tells us that (All Emphasis Added) Christianity came into existence in a polytheistic world, where belief in the existence of many gods was commonplace. Part of the task of the earliest Christian writers appears to have been to distinguish the Christian god from other gods in the religious marketplace. At some point, it had to be asked which god Christians were talking about, and how this god related to the "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," who figures so prominently in the Old Testament. The doctrine of the Trinity appears to have been, in part, a response to the pressure to identify the god that Christians theologians were speaking about. [02]
Bruce Manning Metzger (February 9, 1914 – February 13, 2007) is widely considered one of the most influential New Testament scholars of the 20th century. He served on the board of the American Bible Society and United Bible Societies, was a member of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) translation team, general editor of the NRSV, and one of the editors of the Oxford Companion to the Bible. He wrote... (All Emphasis Added) "... the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon. Later believers systemized the diverse references to God, Jesus and the Spirit found in the New Testament in order to fight against heretical tendencies of how the three are related. Elaboration on the concept of a Trinity also serves to defend the church against charges of di- or tritheism. Since the Christians have come to worship Jesus as god (Pliny, Epistle 96.7), how can they claim to be continuing the monotheistic tradition of the God of Israel? Various answers are suggested, debated, and rejected as heretical, but the idea of a Trinity - one God subsisting in three persons and one substance - ultimately prevails. [03]
I find this statement extremely telling. Not only does it say that the concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead is difficult to detect in the canon, but adds that the concept was developed because the church needed to defend itself against charges that Christians worshipped two or three Gods. After debating various suggestions and rejecting most as heretical, the church ultimately settled on the idea of the trinity, which has thereafter been taught as Gospel truth by the mainstream church. The 325 AD Council of Nicaea declared that the Son is "of the same substance" as the Father... But so absorbed had the Council been in working out the doctrine concerning the Person of Christ that it omitted to make any definite statement concerning the Holy Spirit. It was but natural that until the question concerning the Person and nature of the Son was settled, not much progress could be made in the development of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The defect of the Nicene Creed was remedied, however, by the Second Ecumenical Council, which met at Constantinople in 381, and included in its creed the statement: "We believe in the Holy Ghost, who is the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who, with the Father and Son, together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets." [04]
However, there was a lot more to this Second Ecumenical Council that the reader should be aware of and is covered in Part 7
Either/Or Theology
Charles Ryrie, professor of systematic theology, and dean of doctoral studies, at Dallas Theological Seminary says (Emphasis Added)
"It is fair to say that the Bible does not clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity, if by clearly one means there are proof texts for the doctrine. In fact, there is not even one proof text, if by proof text we mean a verse or passage that "clearly" states that there is one God who exists in three persons.
He goes on to say that we arrive at a clear doctrine of the Trinity by "accepting two lines of evidence in the Bible: (a) clear statements that teach there is only one God; and (b) equally clear statements that teach there was Someone called Jesus and Someone designated the Holy Spirit who in addition to God the Father claimed to be God. Such evidence permits only one of two conclusions: either Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not divine, or God exists as a Triunity." [02]
I am afraid that this is a vast over simplification of the matter, since it does not entertain any possibility other than a) Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not Divine, or b) God is a Triunity. It's either this or that - take it or leave it. The fact is that while the Divinity of Christ and the Divinity of the Holy Spirit are unarguable, these are NOT the only choices. In any case the doctrine of the Trinity, as defined by the Second Ecumenical Council, is so set in stone that all too often it has become...
A Commonly Used Litmus Test For Defining 'True Belief'
Centuries ago, Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274) opined that "it is impossible to believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ without faith in the Trinity, for the mystery of Christ includes that the Son of God took flesh, that he renewed the world through the grace of the Holy Spirit, and again, that he was conceived by the Holy Spirit'.
And not much has changed since. The vast majority of Christians consider the doctrine of the Trinity to be divine truth and a foundational part of the Christian faith. So much so, that many churches, religious organizations, and even individual Christians, consider it to be so sacred and fundamental that they use it as a litmus test for defining who is and who isn't a true Christian. In other words... you cannot be saved if you don't believe in the Trinity. For example, one question posted on the Grace to you web site is "Can you become a Christian if you deny the Trinity?", to which the reply was... (Underlining added) I would answer, "No." If you don't believe in the Trinity, then you don't understand who God is. You may say the word "God" but you don't understand His nature. Second, you couldn't possibly understand who Christ is--that He is God in human flesh. The Incarnation of Christ is an essential component of the biblical gospel, as John 1:1-14 and many other biblical passages make clear. To deny the Trinity is to deny the Incarnation. And to deny the Incarnation is to wrongly understand the true gospel. [05]
I have absolutely NO IDEA why denying the Trinity is equated with denying the incarnation. However, I would like to make one thing very, very clear - from Thomas Aquinas on everyone in this section believes there are three equal members in the Godhead. This article DOES NOT deny that Father, Son and Holy Spirit exist and that ALL THREE ARE DIVINE. It challenges the idea that the Holy Spirit is the third PERSON of the Trinity - an idea found nowhere in the Scriptures. Harold Lindsell and Charles Woodbridge, authors of A Handbook of Christian Truth, say... (Underlining added) The mind of man cannot fully understand the mystery of the Trinity. He who has tried to understand the mystery fully will lose his mind; but he who would deny the Trinity will lose his soul" [06]
Although factually incorrect such sweeping statements are very likely to deter a lot of people from thinking, much less doing their own research. In any case, not everyone is on the same page. Although the authors quoted above say "man cannot fully understand the mystery of the Trinity", James White who taught Greek and Systematic Theology and is currently director of Alpha and Omega Ministries (a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona) says... (All Emphasis Added ) .. We must know, understand, and love the Trinity to be fully and completely Christian. That is why we say the Trinity of the greatest of God's revealed truths" [07]
I am afraid that 1. God doesn't reveal what is not true and 2. we are no closer to understanding everything about God and the spiritual realm than we are to taking a stroll around Pluto. In any case am not sure what "fully and completely" Christian is. Are there degrees of Christianity, which is what the wording suggests? As far as I know, either one is saved, or one isn't. And yes, there are different rewards in the coming kingdom for those that are saved, but they have nothing to do with how well one understands or "loves" the Trinity. See Part VIII of What And Where is “Heaven”? - The Judgment Seat of Christ and Rewards in Heaven What is interesting is that the very same scholars who claim that one cannot be saved without believing in the Trinity make no bones about the fact that the doctrine itself is impossible to grasp or understand.
An "Incomprehensible" Doctrine And An Unreasonable Untenable Position
Louis Berkhof, a Reformed theologian, who taught for almost four decades at Calvin Theological Seminary and is best known for his Systematic Theology says (Underlining added)
"The Church confesses the trinity to be a mystery beyond the comprehension of man. The trinity is a mystery, not merely in the Biblical sense of what is a truth, which was formerly hidden but is now revealed; but in the sense that man cannot comprehend it and make it intelligible." [08].
James White writes (Italics in original. Underlining added) We withhold fellowship from groups like the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses because they reject the Trinity and replace it with another concept. We hang a person's very salvation upon the acceptance of the doctrine, yet if we are honest with ourselves, we really aren't sure why. ... It's the one topic we won't talk about: no one dares question the Trinity for fear of being branded a 'heretic', yet we have all sorts of questions about it and we aren't sure who we can ask. Many believers have asked questions of those they thought we more mature in the faith and have often been confused by the contradictory answers they received... "The doctrine is misunderstood as well as ignored. It is so misunderstood that a majority of Christians, when asked, give incorrect and at times downright heretical definitions of the trinity." [09]
And yet he says "We must know, understand, and love the Trinity to be fully and completely Christian". I am officially and thoroughly confused. I think the next quote pretty much sums up some of the churches intellectually elitist, highbrow and arrogant views "Doctrinal development requires rigorous intellectual skills and sound philosophic categories to accurately apply God's revelation" [10]
And, the common man, having been well indoctrinated into believing that those with "rigorous intellectual skills" have to know what they are talking about, accepts and believes what they say as coming from the mouth of God Himself. Sadly, most of these 'learned' scholars seem to have forgotten that salvation is not only for the highly educated, but has been extended to all men... including simple people with little book learning and/or not exactly up there on IQ tests. And by the way, did you ever get the impression that those fishermen from Galilee had anything approaching "rigorous intellectual skills" It seems quite ridiculous that when theologians themselves consider the doctrine of the Trinity a widely disputed mystery beyond the comprehension of man, that one can expect someone with considerably less learning (or even intelligence) to understand the Trinity. That God sent His Son to pay the penalty for our sin, so that we would not have to is comprehensible. The Trinity... not so much.
Relying On Others To Decide What We Should Believe
When non-Christians hold to the beliefs they may have held from their childhood, we urge them to examine the evidence for themselves. Yet Christians rarely seem to take their own advice, seemingly unwilling to even consider that any of the doctrines they have unquestioningly accepted may not conform to what the Bible teaches. Completely forgetting (or ignoring) the many many New Testament cautions against deception, they will often vigorously defend their beliefs without considering how they came to those beliefs in the first place.
I say that because most believers look to others... theologians, Bible scholars, pastors, etc. to interpret the Bible for them. The problem is that most of the people we rely on tend to believe that they (or their denomination) are the sole repository of Biblical truths and will defend their version to the bitter end. They never seem to even consider that the person who taught the Bible study, preached the sermon, or wrote the book, may not have done any in-depth research for themselves, but obtained their knowledge from someone else who conducted a Bible study, taught at a seminary, or wrote a book. And, in turn, those teachers may not have done any independent research, but learned from someone else who conducted a Bible study, taught at a seminary, or wrote a book.... on and on ad infinitum. The truth is that most of these supposed truths were decided somewhere back along the line - sometimes many hundreds of years ago. They were passed down as Gospel truth from one generation to the next in one or the other seminary/church/Bible study, with the same proof texts offered and unquestioningly accepted. See Other Mistranslations and Misinterpretations on the Index Page The result being that when people go to their Bibles, they do so with preconceived idea already firmly in place. Considering the enormous stakes, our beliefs cannot be based on what the official position is of any given denomination is, what seminaries and Bible schools teach, what this or that 'church father' or Catholic mystic deeply immersed in Greek philosophy believed and taught, what conclusions various councils came to. Nor can we blindly take as Gospel truth what modern scholars and theologians teach and preach - regardless of how well respected and highly thought of they may be. And if we are smart we had better not hang our hats on the peg labeled 'official church doctrine'. By this, I certainly do not mean that we cannot learn from those who may have devoted much of their lives to the study of the Scriptures, and may have great insight into God's word. What I am saying is that every single word that proceeds from the mouth and pen of man has to be carefully checked against the standard that the Almighty Himself has given us. Regardless of how eminent the theologian, if his words do not agree with the Scriptures they are to be discarded forthwith without delay or hesitation. And not a few out of context verses DO NOT count. See Context is CRUCIAL. Sadly, those that disagree with orthodox church doctrine are immediately dismissed as heretics. But amazingly, we continue to think that we ourselves or our teachers cannot possibly be wrong, in spite of the fact that Paul warned that the wolves would arise from among us? And no! I am not saying that those who teach the Trinity are 'wolves' (although there are plenty of those around - including some VERY dangerous ones). See Doctrines of Demons
Why Aren’t We Meticulously Checking Everything We Have Been Told?
A question asked on the Berean Call website was "how can you be sure that your interpretation of the Scriptures is correct, especially when it comes to things that no one can really explain?" The response...
If by reading I cannot discern "the intended meaning of the Holy Bible," then who can? Was it written only for some elite? Must we trust a pastor, priest, denomination? The Roman Catholic pope and magisterium? How could I or you or anyone else today know to whom to look for the correct interpretation of the Bible? If you are suggesting that no one can know, then God has given us a worthless book. [11]
The question we need to ask is what the Bible teaches. And, in order to answer that question, we need to do our own research. Modern software programs have made it relatively easy to examine Hebrew and Greek words and by tracing every occurrence of the word, see how they are used in the Scriptures. There is no question that the study can get complicated and is quite often time consuming but enormously important considering the astronomical stakes. We need to never forget that the book of Acts (17:11) describes the people from the city of Berea as "...more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so".
If the Bereans did not take Paul and Silas’ word for it but checked what they said against the Scriptures, why in the world do we imagine that we can take modern day pastor’s and theologian’s word at face value without checking for ourselves that what they teach is true? We must be a LOT more gullible and, dare I say it - more stupid than those ancient people. These might have been new converts but Paul actually praised then for not taking anyone's word for anything. They knew the only way they could confirm or disprove what they were being taught was by whether or not it agreed with the the Word of God. And I would venture to guess it took them a while to check. Paul warned the Thessalonians to examine everything carefully and discard that which was not good. But perhaps the first thing to do is imitate the Bereans and check for ourselves whether what has been taught for centuries is actually in sync with what Bible teaches ie. one God who exists as three distinct, but equal, persons. After which we should investigate what led to the formation of this doctrine (it certainly wasn't the Scriptures). Not only is the word "trinity" and other commonly used phrases such as "three persons", "one essence", "one substance", "three in one," curiously missing from the Bible. But, as far as the supposed 'proof texts' are concerned, if you openly and honestly read the text you will find none of them do anything but show that Father, Son and Holy Spirit all exist and are all necessary to becoming and remaining a Christian. None of them speak of or even hint at a triune God, nor do any of them present the Spirit as a separate being. So then let us make the effort to find out what the Bible teaches and how the Bible describes and defines the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and their relationship to each other. Continue On To Part II - Passages That Supposedly Prove The Trinity. In support of their position Trinitarians usually advance a number of verses (in less polite terms, the usual suspects are rounded up) as evidence that God exists in three distinct and equal persons. In reality, if you stop letting others tell you what the passage means and just read the text for yourself, you will find that the so called 'proof texts' prove nothing. HERE
Foot Note I - Tertullian
Although Tertullian was said to be passionate, articulate, totally committed. He boldly taunted the might of the Roman empire, courageously defended oppressed believers, and harshly reprimanded compromising Christians. [12]
He was a notable member of the movement know as Montanism that "arose in Phrygia (c.172) under the leadership of a certain Montanus and two female prophets, Prisca and Maximillia, whose entranced utterances were deemed oracles of the Holy Spirit. They had an immediate expectation of Judgment Day, and they encouraged ecstatic prophesying and strict asceticism" [13]
Additionally, although Tertullian's views on the subject is widely debated, I have little doubt that he believed in Purgatory and Transubstantiation (Why else would he warn that a crumb of the bread should not fall on the floor?). Transubstantiation: It was heretofore tolerated in some places that communicants should take each one his portion, with his own hand, but now we suffer none to receive this sacrament except at the hand of the minister.... Offerings are made in honour of our departed friends, on the anniversaries of their deaths, which we esteem their true birthdays, as they are born to a better life. We kneel at other times, but on the Lord's day, and from the Paschal Feast to Pentecost we stand in prayer, nor do we count it lawful to fast on Sundays. We are concerned if even a particle of the wine or bread, made ours, in the Lord's Supper, falls to the ground, by our carelessness. In all the ordinary occasions of life we furrow our foreheads with the sign of the Cross [14] Purgatory: "A woman, after the death of her husband . . . prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, she offers the sacrifice” (Monogamy 10:1–2 [A.D. 216]).
A sad fact is that many of the "church fathers" and other influential Christians who are held in high esteem even by many modern Christians were Catholic to the core. See for example The Sins Of Augustine. Martin Luther was also not exactly what he is often made out to be. In fact, historical accuracy has given place to popular legend and over simplification. What seems to be little known is that Luther's 95 Theses were not final statements of belief, but tentative opinions some of which he was not quite certain of - hence his desire for a discussion and debate. In fact, it is more than likely that the entire incident of him posting his theses on the door of Wittenberg church has been well dramatized. In his own words, he submitted them to a few close friends for discussion, and intended to suppress them if said friends disapproved. Additionally, Luther was vitriolically anti-Semitic and expressed very antagonistic, virulent and hateful views towards the Jews calling them (among other things) "vilest whores and rogues". He went as far as to say "We are at fault for not slaying them," Additionally his views on Infant Baptism, Consubstantiation, Purgatory, The Ten Commandments etc. differed very little from Rome.
End Notes
[00] Matt Perman. Understanding The Trinity. January 23, 2006.
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/what-is-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity
[01] Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. The doctrine of the Virgin Mary and holy Wisdom
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christianity/The-doctrine-of-the-Virgin-Mary-and-holy-Wisdom [02] Alister E. McGrath. Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought. Wiley-Blackwell; 2 edition (July 23, 2012). Paperback. Page 2 [03] The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Editors Bruce M. Metzger and Michael David Coogan. Oxford University Press, USA; First Edition edition (October 14, 1993 Pg 782 [04] Loraine Boettner. The Trinity... Historical Aspects of the Doctrine. © 1999 The Old Time Gospel Ministry.
http://www.theoldtimegospel.org/message3/trin_09.html [05] GTY Staff. Question: Can You Be a Christian and Deny the Trinity? © 2014 Grace to You. Available online at:
http://www.gty.org/resources/questions/QA519 [06] Harold Lindsell and Charles Woodbridge. A Handbook of Christian Truth: 1953, pp. 51-52 As quoted in Is God a Trinity?
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/is-god-a-mysterious-trinity-no-one-can-understand.html [07] James White. The Forgotten Trinity, 1998, Bethany House Publishers; First Edition edition (November 1, 1998) Pgs. 14-16 [08] Louis Berkhof. Systematic Theology, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (September 24, 1996). Pg. 89 [09] James White. The Forgotten Trinity, 1998, Bethany House Publishers; First Edition edition (November 1, 1998) Pgs. 14-16 [10] Melinda Penner. The Doctrine of the Trinity at Nicaea and Chalcedon. Apr 5, 2013. Retrieved February 4, 2014 from
http://www.str.org/articles/the-doctrine-of-the-trinity-at-nicaea-and-chalcedon#.Un5oFtLTmCi [11] The Berean Call. https://www.thebereancall.org/content/may-2008-q-and-a-3 [12] Who Was Tertullian? Christianity.com. https://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1-300/tertullian-11629598.html [13] https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Montanism [14] ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian by Schaff, Philip.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.iv.vi.xvi.html?highlight=a,particle,of,the,wine,or,bread#highlight | 
