Imperfect Messanger

In case anyone hasn't figured it out yet, most Christians aren't perfect. We were born with a bent to sin. Although we were made in the image of God, the image was marred by our sin and rebellion. But Christ, the Word of the Father, begotten before all worlds, came in the flesh, was born of the virgin, preached and chose Apostles to build His Church, suffered and was crucified, was raised on the third  day, ascended, and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

The Resurrection is supposed to be the daily reality of our lives. Hearing His voice, taking up our cross, and  Dying with Him. And in so doing, the broken image will be restored; the divine nature will be ours by grace...

I have a long way to go. We all do. And along the way, let's be kind to our fellow travelers.

I know Augustine wasn't perfect either. But with him I would pray,

"Unto you I will offer up an offering of praise. Late have I loved you, O Beauty ever old and ever new.You were within me, and I without, and there I sought you. You were with me when I was not with you. You called and cried to me, and pierced my deafness. You shone and glowed, and dispelled my blindness. You touched me, and I burned for your peace."

Not A Mainstream Evangelical

              Some time ago I wrote an article, on why I am not a Roman Catholic. I wish now to try to explain why I do not consider myself a typical "evangelical protestant". This is not to say that I reject all that is held by either. But I wish to be as honest about the apparent shortcomings of mainstream "evangelicalism" as the Church of Rome.

                Let us begin at the root. For evangelicals, there is no authority other than the Bible. There is no "tradition" other than a lack of one. (1)To most evangelicals, what the early church believed is irrelevant because we have the Scriptures.

               
               Now, that seems very reasonable. But, if two people of entirely different backgrounds come to the same text, read the same words- and arrive at two different conclusions, which one is correct?

                
               In other words: Suppose the first person lived very shortly after the time of Christ; he reads the books in his own language, he is surrounded by the same cultures in which they were written, he is instructed by those who knew the Lord and His apostles-  the "faithful men" to whom the Holy tradition was given.

                And suppose the second was someone who lived well over a thousand years after Christ; he reads the books in someone's hopefully reliable translation, is in a totally different culture, is instructed by those who have "private interpretations", or whoever has an opinion.

                Which of the two seems to have a better chance of correctly understanding what was intended?

                Obviously the first person. And so I believe that the writings of the early church are better guides to the original, than much of what came out of the Reformation. The Reformation led to the questioning of more than the primacy of Rome- for many, it led to the questioning of everything.

                Perhaps the Achilles heel of the evangelical position is that of Scripture. It is in large part because of the teachings of the early church that the current Canon was compiled. Thus, whether intentionally or not, evangelicals accept early church tradition as a real authority.

                So- contemporary evangelicalism, in most of its guises, does not look to the early church, the most reliable human witnesses, to help them interpret Scripture.

               
               (2) The early Church understood the relationship of works and faith in an entirely different way than most evangelicals. While neither they, the Orthodox- or Catholic churches ever have said that one can earn one's salvation, or obtain it without grace, they all have insisted that works DO play a part of completing salvation. "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone," (James 2:24) They are two sides of the same coin. Faith must work, or it is no faith at all.

                
               (3) The gist of salvation for the evangelical tends to be primarily the forgiveness of sin, when one accepts Christ. The emphasis is on being saved from Hell- or being pardoned. While that is important, the Early Church emphasized "Regeneration": Faith in Christ; "saving baptism"(1 Peter 3:21); receiving the Holy Spirit; becoming "partakers of the divine nature"(2 Peter 1:4). In other words, the focus in evangelical settings is often on that onetime acceptance of Christ, forgiveness of sin, and getting others to do the same. In the early Church, the emphasis is on the new birth- but it does not stop there! It goes on, seeing that experience as the beginning, not the end. The goal of man, the early Church taught, is not simply to be forgiven, but to become like his Lord.

               
               (4) As a result of a very low view of "tradition", any concept of Church authority is questioned. Christ said to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19) Surely the apostles, as leaders and shepherds of the Church were given special authority. "the household of God, [was] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone" (Ephesians 2:19, 20). It was typical of the heretics of the early church to reject authority- both of the Church and the Holy Scriptures.

                
              (5) The evangelical mainstream has accepted the dress, culture, and music of the world. It has taken the fads of popular culture and tried to make them holy. There is something absolutely repulsive about the magnificent beauty and holiness of our Lord being communicated in the style of a seductive pop diva. The world is brought into the church.

                
             (6) A profusion of Calvinistic tendencies, directly at odds with the writings of the early Church, and contrary to every ancient branch of Christendom.

                
             (7) An unquestioning loyalty to pre-millenial eschatology. Again, a very modern idea that has become almost a doctrine.

                
             (8) Very little regard for the concept of voluntary celibacy or poverty. Where is the St. Francis among evangelicals? Should it be surprising to us if Jesus should call men to sell all that they have and follow Him today?

          
          These are the reasons why I do not consider myself a mainstream evangelical. There is much to appreciate in their concern for scripture, and emphasis on faith. But as with the Catholic Church, a reaction to one error often leads to another.        

Greed, and OWS

     Generally this blog has been the place that I have written about my theological quandaries and convictions. But I feel like discussing the recent developments regarding Occupy Wall Street.


     The stated target of Occupy Wall Street protesters seems to be "corporate greed". And to these people, anyone who has worked hard enough to earn a high standard of living, is greedy. They also believe that all poverty is entirely the fault of bankers, hedge fund managers, and CEO's.

     This is the modern left. Read their signs that call for the end of capitalism. That demand that another class be tarred and feathered. A movement of malcontents, would-be-socialists, and even anti-Semites.

     A group more greedy than the ones they target. A group of amazing ignorance. Who demand goods and services from "capitalists", whose end they announce. A group who hates banks, asking for money. A group dedicated to putting everyone in poverty, and simultaneously grumbling about unemployment. As far as I can tell, a mob of Marxists.

     What then is a Christian view?

     That greed is not defined by your tax bracket. That God calls the rich to charity, and so turn temporal blessing to eternal riches. That a man should earn his own wages, not demand a share of another's. That Christian poverty, like celibacy, is a choice for individuals, not a government program. That offering a good job is a better humanitarian project than offering a handout. That class warfare is a sin because it comes from greed and covetousness.

     I don't think Jesus would be a part of Occupy Wall Street. And I know I'm not...

Ignatius Epistle - Part II

Here is the rest of Ignatius' letter:


Ignatius to the Smyrnaens - short version


I give you these instructions, beloved, assured that ye also hold the same opinions[as I do]. But I guard you beforehand from those beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with; only you must pray to God for them, if by any means they may be brought to repentance, which, however, will be very difficult. Yet Jesus Christ, who is our true life, has the power of[effecting] this. But if these things were done by our Lord only in appearance, then am I also only in appearance bound. And why have I also surrendered myself to death, to fire, to the sword, to the wild beasts? But,[in fact,] he who is near to the sword is near to God; he that is among the wild beasts is in company with God; provided only he be so in the name of Jesus Christ. I undergo all these things that I may suffer together with Him, He who became a perfect man inwardly strengthening me.



Some ignorantly deny Him, or rather have been denied by Him, being the advocates of death rather than of the truth. These persons neither have the prophets persuaded, nor the law of Moses, nor the Gospel even to this day, nor the sufferings we have individually endured. For they think also the same thing regarding us. For what does any one profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was[truly] possessed of a body? But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death. I have not, however, thought good to write the names of such persons, inasmuch as they are unbelievers. Yea, far be it from me to make any mention of them, until they repent and return to[a true belief in] Christ's passion, which is our resurrection.


Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." Let not[high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is a faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty.


They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.


See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.


Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness[of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does[in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for ye are worthy. Ye have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ[shall refresh] you. Ye have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while ye endure all things, ye shall attain unto Him.


Ye have done well in receiving Philo and Rheus Agathopus as servants of Christ our God, who have followed me for the sake of God, and who give thanks to the Lord in your behalf, because ye have in every way refreshed them. None of these things shall be lost to you. May my spirit be for you, and my bonds, which ye have not despised or been ashamed of; nor shall Jesus Christ, our perfect hope, be ashamed of you.


Your prayer has reached to the Church which is at Antioch in Syria. Coming from that place bound with chains, most acceptable to God, I salute all; I who am not worthy to be styled from thence, inasmuch as I am the least of them. Nevertheless, according to the will of God, I have been thought worthy[of this honour], not that I have any sense[of having deserved it], but by the grace of God, which I wish may be perfectly given to me, that through your prayers I may attain to God. In order, therefore, that your work may be complete both on earth and in heaven, it is fitting that, for the honour of God, your Church should elect some worthy delegate; so that he, journeying into Syria, may congratulate them that they are[now] at peace, and are restored to their proper greatness, and that their proper constitution has been re-established among them. It seems then to me a becoming thing, that you should send some one of your number with an epistle, so that, in company with them, he may rejoice over the tranquility which, according to the will of God, they have obtained, and because that, through your prayers, they have now reached the harbour. As persons who are perfect, ye should also aim at those things which are perfect. For when ye are desirous to do well, God is also ready to assist you.


The love of the brethren at Troas salutes you; whence also I write to The love of your brethren at Troas salutes you; whence also I write to you by Burrhus, whom ye sent with me, together with the Ephesians, your brethren, and who has in all things refreshed me. And I would that all may imitate him, as being a pattern of a minister of God. Grace will reward him in all things. I salute your most worthy bishop, and your very venerable presbytery, and your deacons, my fellow-servants, and all of you individually, as well as generally, in the name of Jesus Christ, and in His flesh and blood, in His passion and resurrection, both corporeal and spiritual, in union with God and you. Grace, mercy, peace, and patience, be with you for evermore!


I salute the families of my brethren, with their wives and children, and and the virgins who are called widows. Be ye strong, I pray, in the power of the Holy Ghost. Philo, who is with me, greets you. I salute the house of Tavias, and pray that it may be confirmed in faith and love, both corporeal and spiritual. I salute Alce; my well-beloved, and the incomparable Daphnus, and Eutecnus, and all by name. Fare ye well in the grace of God.

An Assignment

Dear reader: I have an assignment for you.

It has been the claim of nearly every denomination that calls itself Christian, to say that they hold the "original" teachings of the Church.

Compare the Church of the first century to yours. You can do so by reading the writings of men like Polycarp, Ignatius, and Justyn Martyr. It will not read like a novel - but it will challenge you, and force you to think about some rather uncomfortable discrepancies between "mainstream" evangelicalism and the first generations of believers.

Perhaps the most interesting, and disconcerting (in a good way) is the lion of the early church- St. Ignatius. He was the third bishop of Antioch, and was martyred during 108 A.D, according to Eusebius. His writings are fiery, beautiful, and edifying.

Ignatius' Epistle to the Smyraeans - short version:

PART 1

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church of God the Father, and of the beloved Jesus Christ, which has through mercy obtained every kind of gift, which is filled with faith and love, and is deficient in no gift, most worthy of God, and adorned with holiness: the Church which is at Smyrna, in Asia, wishes abundance of happiness, through the immaculate Spirit and word of God.

I glorify God, even Jesus Christ, who has given you such wisdom. For I have observed that ye are perfected in an immoveable faith, as if ye were nailed to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, both in the flesh and in the spirit, and are established in love through the blood of Christ, being fully persuaded with respect to our Lord, that He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh, and the Son of God according to the will and power of God; that He was truly born of a virgin, was baptized by John, in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him; and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed[to the cross] for us in His flesh. Of this fruit we are by His divinely-blessed passion, that He might set up a standard s for all ages, through His resurrection, to all His holy and faithful[followers], whether among Jews or Gentiles, in the one body of His Church.

Now, He suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved. And He suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself, not, as certain unbelievers maintain, that He only seemed to suffer, as they themselves only seem to be[Christians]. And as they believe, so shall it happen unto them, when they shall be divested of their bodies, and be mere evil spirits.

For I know that after His resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh, and I believe that He is so now. When, for instance, He came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, "Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit." And immediately they touched Him, and believed, being convinced both by His flesh and spirit. For this cause also they despised death, and were found its conquerors. And after his resurrection He did eat and drink with them, as being possessed of flesh, although spiritually He was united to the Father.

(To be continued...)

Why I am Not a Roman Catholic

In order to clarify my own thoughts, I am going to try to write a coherent explanation of my grounds for not accepting the claims of the Roman Church. In this discussion, I will so far as possible avoid unfair criticisms, although I will freely confess that coming from the Anabaptist tradition does make this at times difficult. Also I will try to use legitimate and recent Catholic sources.

Let us begin by pointing to the claim implied in the very title of the Catholic Church. The claim of "Catholicity" is the claim to be preservers of the faith that was delivered to the Apostles and the "faithful men" to whom they committed the tradition and rule of faith. Fundamental to the claim is the concept of Apostolic Succession, which can also be claimed by the Orthodox and Anglican Churches.

If the claim of Rome is true, it should follow that there be very little disagreement between the writings of the first centuries and the latest Catechism from the Vatican. Let us consider a few examples...

Here is a quote from the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church: "The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it."70 The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone:" (Part 3 Section 2 Article 1)

Here is a quote from Origen: "it is not possible at the same time to know God and to address prayers to images." (Origen, Against Celsus, Book 7, Chapter LXV)
Synod of Elvira: "There shall be no pictures in the church, lest what is worshipped and adored should be depicted on the walls." (c. 306 AD, Canon 36)

Augustine: "Does anyone worship or pray with his eyes fixed on the image, without being persuaded that the image is hearing his petition and without hoping that it will give him what he wants? Probably not. So thoroughly entangled do people become in such superstitions that they often turn their backs on the real sun and pour out their prayers to the statue they call Sun; or again, while the sound of the sea is battering them from behind they batter the statue of Neptune with their sighs as though it were conscious, that statue which they venerate as representative of the actual sea. What causes this error-almost forces the illusion on them, in fact-is the human likeness with all its bodily parts. The minds of the worshippers are accustomed to living with their own bodily senses, and so they judge that a body very similar to their own is more likely to be responsive than the sun's orb, or the wide waves, or any other object clearly not built on the same plane as the living creatures they are used to seeing.

6. It may be objected that we ourselves have many vessels and other accessories made of similar metals, which we use in the celebration of the sacraments. They are consecrated to divine service and are called holy in honor of him who is worshipped through their use for our salvation. Such vessels and implements are obviously the work of human hands: what else could they be? But do they have mouths that will never speak, or eyes that will never see? And does the fact that we make use of them to offer our supplications to God mean that we are begging anything from them? Of course not.

The principal cause of insane, blasphemous idolatry is this: a form resembling that of a living person- a form that by its lifelike appearance seems to demand worship- is more powerfully persuasive to the emotions of its wretched suppliants than the plain fact that it is not alive and ought to be scorned by anyone who is. The evidence of mouths, eyes, ears, nostrils, hands, and feet in the idols has more power to lead an unhappy soul astray than the evident inability on their part to speak, see, hear, smell, handle things, or walk has power to bring such a soul back to the truth."

John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 3, Vol. 19, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B., Expositions of the Psalms, Psalms 99-120, Exposition 2 of Psalm 113.5 (Psalm 114) (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2003), pp. 315-316]. ~http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3874

(I) It is difficult to explain how this testimony of antiquity can be in agreement with the current teachings of Rome. How can such contradiction be simply a blossoming of the primitive doctrine?

On the question of oaths, here is the statement from the Catechism: "Following St. Paul, the tradition of the Church has understood Jesus' words as not excluding oaths made for grave and right reasons (for example, in court)." (Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 1, article 2).

However, Cyprian states without qualification: "That we must not swear." (Treatise XII, Book Three).

It also seems to me from Justin's Apology, that all partook of the Eucharist; It is now denied to the laity in the Roman Church.

Here is Justin's account of the weekly service:

"And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons."

(2) Then there is the apparent ignorance of the early writers of such contemporary teachings as prayers to saints, the Pope as infallible and the universal bishop, transubstantiation, and infant baptism. Now- in fairness, some of these may possibly be hinted at by a very few writers, but to claim that most in any sense would have endorsed the Roman version as Dogma, and fundamental articles of faith is preposterous. It is an argument from the silence of the witnesses!

If these doctrines are necessary to be a good catholic today, what will become of Ignatius and Clement?

Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church is absolutely chargeable with innovation in doctrine.

Now, we have only considered the Roman teachings as compared with the writings of the fathers of the Church. Perhaps the reader will say that we should have started with Holy Scripture, and argued only from them. But, it appears to me, that the claims of the Roman Catholic Church are founded on the grounds of Apostolic tradition. If the writings of the Church fathers are shown to be in clear disagreement, or even ignorant of such signal Roman beliefs as prayer to saints, transubstantiation, and involuntarily celibate clergy, the entire claim crumbles.

I am going to say that the concept of Apostolic Succession, is actually arguable from the very earliest writings of the Church. In the early centuries, this mattered significantly; it was a key point of being catholic (notice the lower-case "c").

As I understand it, the use of "Catholic" in the first centuries, and in the Creed, refers to the apostolic origin and doctrines of the Church.

But, in the case of today's Roman Catholic Church, it is a legitimate question to ask if she exhibits the "four marks": Is she One? Is she Holy? Is she Catholic? Is she apostolic?

Tertullian prescribes this test:

"It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood."

How am I to believe, that the doctrines promulgated by the Council of Trent had their origins in the tradition of the apostles- and were never revealed until then?

Therefore the Roman Catholic Church requires faith in her own infallibility, without giving us solid grounds to form such convictions.

I believe the sacred Scriptures, because they are consistent with the world, and are more reliable than any other authority; and I believe in the Holy Trinity because it is taught in Scripture and held by all catholic (notice again the lowercase "c") Christians.

But I do not believe the claim of today's Roman Catholic Church.

I am currently listening to Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, and most heartily recommend it. There is a quite good Librivox recording of it available (for free!).

The accounts of the martyrs are amazing. What devotion! What grace!
Those of us in the Protestant/evangelical community are missing a lot by ignoring the Church in its first centuries. We suffer from chronological snobbery, I fear.
The feats of these early "athletes of Christ" and their faithful brethren should be admired today. It is because such accounts as these that I cringe when people speak slightingly of the catholic (lower-case "c") Church in the days leading up to and during the days of Nicaea:


The Egyptians in Phœnicia.

1. THOSE of them that were conspicuous in Palestine we know, as also those that were at Tyre in Phœnicia. Who that saw them was not astonished at the numberless stripes, and at the firmness which these truly wonderful athletes of religion exhibited under them? and at their contest, immediately after the scourging, with bloodthirsty wild beasts, as they were cast before leopards and different kinds of bears and wild boars and bulls goaded with fire and red-hot iron? and at the marvelous endurance of these noble men in the face of all sorts of wild beasts?

2. We were present ourselves when these things occurred, and have put on record the divine power of our martyred Savior Jesus Christ, which was present and manifested itself mightily in the martyrs. For a long time the man-devouring beasts did not dare to touch or draw near the bodies of those dear to God, but rushed upon the others who from the outside irritated and urged them on. And they would not in the least touch the holy athletes, as they stood alone and naked and shook their hands at them to draw them toward themselves,—for they were commanded to do this. But whenever they rushed at them, they were restrained as if by some divine power and retreated again.

3. This continued for a long time, and occasioned no little wonder to the spectators. And as the first wild beast did nothing, a second and a third were let loose against one and the same martyr.

4. One could not but be astonished at the invincible firmness of these holy men, and the enduring and immovable constancy of those whose bodies were young. You could have seen a youth not twenty years of age standing unbound and stretching out his hands in the form of a cross, with unterrified and untrembling mind, engaged earnestly in prayer to God, and not in the least going back or retreating from the place where he stood, while bears and leopards, breathing rage and death, almost touched his flesh. And yet their mouths were restrained, I know not how, by a divine and incomprehensible power, and they ran back again to their place. Such an one was he.

5. Again you might have seen others, for they were five in all, cast before a wild bull, who tossed into the air with his horns those who approached from the outside, and mangled them, leaving them to be token up half dead; but when he rushed with rage and threatening upon the holy martyrs, who were standing alone, he was unable to come near them; but though he stamped with his feet, and pushed in all directions with his horns, and breathed rage and threatening on account of the irritation of the burning irons, he was, nevertheless, held back by the sacred Providence. And as he in nowise harmed them, they let loose other wild beasts upon them.

6. Finally, after these terrible and various attacks upon them, they were all slain with the sword; and instead of being buried in the earth they were committed to the waves of the sea.

Those in Egypt.

1. SUCH was the conflict of those Egyptians who contended nobly for religion in Tyre. But we must admire those also who suffered martyrdom in their native land; where thousands of men, women, and children, despising the present life for the sake of the teaching of our Savior, endured various deaths.

2. Some of them, after scrapings and rackings and severest scourgings, and numberless other kinds of tortures, terrible even to hear of, were committed to the flames; some were drowned in the sea; some offered their heads bravely to those who cut them off; some died under their tortures, and others perished with hunger. And yet others were crucified; some according to the method commonly employed for malefactors; others yet more cruelly, being nailed to the cross with their heads downward, and being kept alive until they perished on the cross with hunger.

~ Bk. 8, Chapter 7 and 8: