What gluttony is and its gravity

Gluttony is the inordinate indulgence in food or drink. The use of food and drink should be regulated by temperance according to right reason. As a standard right reason will be guided by the necessities of bodily health and strength, interpreted in a wide sense, and the uses of the society in which one lives. Inordinateness will come in if through appetite we anticipate the proper time for taking refreshment, or demand too exquisite dishes, or indulge in excess, or devour our food voraciously, or require too great care in the preparation of food, paying a chef as much as all the other servants put together.

Gluttony is of itself a venial sin, but it becomes mortal if it leads to violating precepts, such as those of fasting and abstinence, which bind under grave sin, or if it seriously injures health, or if it makes a man unfit to pursue his ordinary avoca- tions, or if eating and drinking become the end for which a man lives, whose God is his belly,¹ or if it causes complete loss of reason through drunkenness.

¹ Phil. iii 19.

I. Notion. Gluttony, taken generally, is the inordinate appetite either for food or non-intoxicating drink, or for intoxicating drink.

II. Division. Gluttony, taken generally, comprises gluttony strictly so called, or excess in eating and drinking, and drunkenness.

III. Gluttony strictly so called. 1. Notion. Gluttony strictly so called, or excess in eating and drinking, as has already been said, is the inordinate appetite for food or non-intoxicating drink; it is opposed to abstinence.

2. Morality. Gluttony per se, i.e., insofar as it is opposed to abstinence, is venial. The reason is that it involves excess in a thing indifferent in itself. It becomes mortal, for example, if someone gravely harms his health, if from gluttony he becomes unequal to sustaining his family or paying his debts (St. Alphonsus, V, 73).

Corollary I. Gluttony is not a grave sin even when someone eats or drinks to the point of vomiting. It is doubted whether those sin gravely who purposely vomit what they have taken, so that they may eat and drink again. Several affirm it, because that seems to involve great deformity against rational nature. But gluttony by reason of itself is never forbidden under mortal sin; nor is it clearly seen that by a deformity greater only in degree another species of sin is introduced.

Corollary II. The eating of human flesh or blood seems to be a grave sin. For an act of this kind, at least according to common estimation, redounds upon the person of the deceased, and therefore is opposed to observance, insofar as this virtue extends itself in some way to all; moreover, that it is gravely opposed is clear from the very nature of this act. The contrary must be said if someone eats human flesh from necessity.

Change in the Gravity of Moral Defects.-An imperfection becomes a sin: (a) if the motive for omitting what is of counsel only is sinful (e.g., to neglect a Mass that is not of obligation out of contempt); (b) if a slight indeliberate transgression has a cause that was voluntary (e.g., involuntary distractions caused by previous neglect).

Venial sins become mortal when that which in itself is a slight offense, becomes in the individual agent a grave offense by reason of some change in the object or of some grave malice in the purpose, circumstances, or the foreseen results (see above 97 sqq.).

A change in the object makes venial sin mortal: (a) when that which is light matter objectively is apprehended subjectively as grave matter (e.g., a person tells a small lie or commits a trifling theft, thinking these to be mortal sins); (b) when that which is light matter by itself becomes knowingly grave matter through the additions that are made to it (e.g., a thief steals small amounts frequently with the intention of having a great amount of ill-gotten money after a time).

It should be noted that, while the matter of venial sins may coalesce so as to form grave matter and constitute a mortal sin, as just explained, venial sins themselves do not, from mere multiplication, ever become mortal, since the difference between mortal and venial sin is not one of quantity, but of kind. Hence, when acts are slightly sinful but do not coalesce, they multiply venial sins, but do not form mortal sin. Example: Coming a few minutes late for Mass every Sunday.

The multiplication of venial sins, especially when they are held as of no importance, disposes for the commission of mortal sin: (a) directly, by forming a habit that calls for ever greater indulgence (e.g., petty thefts lead to dishonesty on a large scale); (b) indirectly, by familiarizing one with wrongdoing and chilling the love for virtue.

The wrong purpose of the agent makes an act that is only venially sinful (as far as the object is concerned) to become mortally sinful, when the purpose contains a grave malice in itself, for the act is then intended only as a means to what is seriously wrong (see above 80). Example: To tell a small lie in order to break up friendships and sow hatreds.

The circumstances of an act that is only venially sinful in itself also make the act mortally sinful, when there is grave malice in such circumstances. Cases of this kind are the following:

(a) The circumstance of the person committing the sin sometimes changes the malice from light to grave. Example: Unbecoming levity in one in authority may cause serious disrespect for his office and thus be gravely sinful;

(b) The circumstance of the manner in which an act is performed may change it from a venial to a mortal sin, as when the sin is committed out of contempt, or is so coveted that it would be preferred to a grave obligation. Examples: One who violates a law of lesser moment, not because he regards it as bad, but because he wishes to show his disregard of all law and authority; or one who is so attached to games of chance that he is prepared to steal a large sum rather than give them up.

The serious harm that is foreseen as a result of venial sin also changes the malice from slight to serious. Examples: One who jokingly annoys another, knowing that this will provoke grave dissensions; or one who tells small lies to persons who are known for their uncharitable distortions and exaggerations; or one who agrees to take too much strong drink knowing from experience that this invariably leads to serious excess.

Mortal sins become venial when that which in itself is a grave offense, becomes light by reason of some change in he object or lack of full consent in the subject.

A change in the object makes a mortal sin venial: (a) when that which is grave matter objectively, is apprehended through inculpable, or only venially culpable ignorance as light matter (e.g., when an uninstructed child thinks that a serious calumny is only a venial sin); (b) when a sin whose character is serious but whose matter is divisible is small as to matter (e.g,, to be absent from a small part of the Mass on Sunday); (e) when a law whose obligation is grave will cause more than slight inconvenience in a particular case, and thus becomes of light obligation for that case (e.g., to miss Mass on Sunday because of a difficulty that was not unsurmountable, but yet considerable).

Lack of sufficient advertence or of full consent makes a mortal sin venial; (a) when without serious fault one does not advert to a gravely sinful act (e.g., a desire of revenge); (b) when without serious fault one does not know or does not think about the grave malice of what one is doing (e.g., to repeat a story, not knowing or not remembering at the time that it is a serious calumny); (c) when on account of considerable excitement, fear or other disturbance, one gives only partial consent to an act that is mortally sinful (e.g., when one, on being suddenly insulted, replies with a serious imprecation).

I. Gluttony is the inordinate appetite for food or drink. It is called:

1. an inordinate appetite, that is, exceeding the mode prescribed by right reason. But the mode prescribed by reason is that nourishment be taken so that it may be useful for right life and for preserving health; namely, insofar as foods are necessary or fitting for preserving good health and a fitting disposition of the mind for its functions. Therefore one who exceeds this mode on account of delight and seeks that delight more than is fitting, or even adheres to it as an end, so that he rests in it and wills it for its own sake, acts inordinately;

2. for food or drink, and indeed drink whether non-intoxicating or intoxicating; whence there is distinguished: a) gluttony strictly so called, which is also called crapula or excessive feasting, and is the inordinate appetite for food or common drink; b) drunkenness, which is the inordinate appetite for intoxicating drink.¹

¹ St. Thomas, II-II, q. 148, a. 1; cf. Luke 21:34.

II. The species and gravity of gluttony. - There are five diverse modes by which the delight of gluttony is unduly sought: too soon, sumptuously, too much, ardently, daintily. These are five distinct and proper species of gluttony, because they proceed from diverse motives opposed to the very virtue of temperance. For the appetite for nourishment can be inordinate a) as to the nourishment itself, either 1. concerning the substance, by seeking, namely, delicate or too costly foods, attention being given to the state of the man (sumptuously); or 2. as to the quality, by seeking foods too carefully and tastily prepared (daintily); or 3. as to quantity, by exceeding too much in the very quantity (too much); b) as to the taking, either 4. when it is done before or outside the due time (too soon); or 5. when it does not observe the due mode, but is done voraciously and with excessive eagerness (ardently).²

² St. Thomas, II-II, q. 148, a. 4.

Gluttony strictly so called is per se a venial sin from its genus, even if it be carried through even to vomiting, because it is only an excess in the appetite for a thing of itself licit. Whence the five aforesaid modes are distinct venial species, and consequently they are not necessarily to be declared in confession.

Per accidens, however, other modes can be present from the conjunction of another species, by reason of which gluttony can even become mortal: a) if someone establishes his last end in it, whether explicitly or implicitly; b) if he is prepared to sin mortally, for example to steal, so that he may have the delight of food (Phil. 3:19); c) if he inflicts grave harm on his health; d) if he renders himself unfit for fulfilling an office to which he is bound under grave obligation; e) if he renders himself unable to pay debts, or dissipates the goods of the family; f) if for the sake of excessive feasting he violates the precept of fasting or of abstinence from flesh-meats; g) if excessive feasting is the cause of another grave sin, for example of grave scandal, as if a cleric casts himself into public banquets.

Several add: if someone provokes vomiting so that, for serving pleasure, he may be able to eat and drink again, because this is more than bestial and greatly dishonors a rational creature. We indeed admit that this is rather often an indication that he is delighted in foods as in the last end; nevertheless this is not necessarily and always so, and consequently it is not always mortal, unless it were grave scandal to others.

IV. Warnings for confessors. - 1. Penitents who accuse themselves of eating or drinking for pleasure are not always guilty. For it is not illicit to intend and seek the pleasure which God willed to be present in foods and drinks, provided that it is ordered, at least implicitly, to the principal honorable end of sustenance; but it is a sin to eat for pleasure alone, sought for its own sake and by resting in it, excluding the principal end, or principally for pleasure, not for an honorable good, so that the honorable good is subordinated to delight.

2. Rarely do penitents sin mortally from gluttony. More easily they sin from drunkenness, not in the sense that they often drink even to the privation of the use of reason, indeed if this happens once or again, commonly it happens beyond intention, but that certain persons too much given to drinking, by this reason, fail in their duties and functions, create grave affliction for the family, dissolve its bonds, do not provide for the education of offspring, cannot pay debts, etc. The confessor, nevertheless, can presume drunkenness to have been voluntary in him who is accustomed frequently to become drunk, for example ten times in single months. But if some man sufficiently intelligent confesses that within a month he was drunk once or again, let him be asked whether he foresaw the drunkenness. One who has been drunk once or a second time, without any habit, is to be presumed not to have foreseen the drunkenness.

3. Drunkenness, even when carried to perfect privation of the use of reason, is not so essentially evil that it cannot be induced in any case; but it can be licit to commit oneself to drunkenness, if it is a necessary means for obtaining a proportionate good, for example for driving away a disease, such as typhus, or for restraining the force of poison from the bite of a serpent, because the good of the part yields to the good of the whole man. On the contrary, it can be a sin, although per accidens privation of the use of reason does not follow. Whence, says St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, book V, n. 78, he is not excused from mortal sin who takes a quantity of drink of itself apt for inducing perfect drunkenness, although, before he is deprived of his senses, he commits himself to sleep, by which he escapes the effect of the wine; because that drinking of itself is intrinsically evil, since of itself it is apt to deprive that man of the use of reason, and it is per accidens whether he is deprived of his senses by sleep or by intoxication. Namely, he posited the whole cause of the evil, and there will remain an incapacity of recovering the use of reason which would not have arisen from natural sleep.

4. A sin similar to drunkenness is to bring on privation of the use of reason from another cause than from drink, for example by smoke, the smoking of tobacco, the odor of hops, the use of opium or morphine, etc., concerning which it was said above, c. 2, sec. B, q. 1, IV and VI.

5. Those sin gravely, by cooperating in the drunkenness of others, who invite others to draughts by which they are probably foreseen to become drunk; likewise those who provoke or compel them to equal draughts with probable danger of drunkenness; likewise those who without grave proportionate cause minister drink to drunkards or to those near drunkenness. Nevertheless it can be licit, for a grave cause, to set wine before another with foresight of drunkenness. But those who lead others to drunkenness by their example alone sin by the sin of scandal.

6. To the gluttonous and drunken properly, or rather grossly, so called, let there be recalled to mind the proximate effects of gluttony and drunkenness in body and soul: in the body, uncleannesses and illnesses; in the soul, dullness of mind and the defacing of the image of God. To them let there be strictly prescribed avoidance of occasions, mortification of the flesh, prayer to God, confession after relapse, together with a severe penance voluntarily imposed on themselves; and sometimes enrollment in a society of sobriety or abstinence will be counseled. For the vice of drunkenness is counted among those from which men emerge with difficulty, unless they labor in eradicating it with all their strength and divine help.

7. To spiritual men who manifest a propensity to gluttony, let there be earnestly commended the avoidance of incitements of gluttony, the subtraction at table of some food more pleasing to the palate, moderation of the appetite which is borne toward foods more ardently than is just, serious expiation of faults of gluttony, even slight ones, and the reduction of the quantity of foods to a just estimation to be taken from experience.

8. Let priests strive in every way against the vice of alcoholism, insofar as they can, by warning parents that they turn their children away from it; by inculcating strength of soul and mortification, by which virtues of the will they are disposed to resist strenuously the temptation of abusing liquors; by frequently teaching temperance and sobriety in the pulpit and also in the sacred tribunal; and by corroborating the doctrine by their own example.

S. Th. II-II, q. 148.

977. Gluttony (gourmandise; gulzigheid) is an inordinate appetite or use of food or drink, insofar as it gives delight.

1. It is an inordinate appetite, that is, exceeding the order of right reason. The mode of reason in taking food is that a man take what is useful for right life and health, namely what is necessary or fitting for good health and for a proper disposition of mind. Therefore to seek delight from food more than is fitting, or to adhere to it as to an end, is inordinate.¹

¹ Gula is said from the throat, through which food passes to the stomach. - Proposition 8 of Innocent XI is condemned: "To eat and drink even to satiety, for pleasure alone, is not a sin, provided it does not harm health; because natural appetite can licitly enjoy its own acts." Cf. Luke 21:34; see above, p. 885.

2. It concerns food or drink, namely drink which is not intoxicating. If the excess is about food or non-intoxicating drink, it is called gluttony in the strict sense, crapula, or commessation; but if it is about intoxicating drink, it is drunkenness.

3. It concerns these insofar as they give delight, and so it is directly opposed to abstinence.

978. Species of gluttony. - There are five modes according to which gluttony can be committed: too soon, sumptuously, too much, ardently, and too carefully. These are not distinct species in the strict sense, but diverse modes arising from diverse motives opposed to abstinence.

For the inordination can be on the part of the food itself, if one seeks food more delicate or more costly than is fitting, and then he eats sumptuously; or if he seeks food prepared too carefully and tastily, and then he eats too carefully; or if he seeks too much food, and then he eats too much. It can also be on the part of the taking of food, if one takes it before or outside the due time, and then he eats too soon; or if he takes it voraciously and too avidly, and then he eats ardently.

There can also be other modes, by reason of an added species of sin; for example, to eat human flesh from a beastly appetite. This, however, is not illicit if it is done as medicine or from another just cause in extreme hunger; yet it is never licit to kill a man for this purpose.

979. Crapula is of itself a venial sin from its kind, even if it proceeds to vomiting, because it is merely an excess in the appetite for a thing indifferent. This remains true even if someone provokes vomiting so that he may eat or drink again, unless there is grave scandal, or unless this is a sign that he delights in food as in a final end.

Accidentally, however, it can be mortal:

1. If delight in food is held as a final end, explicitly or implicitly; for example, if one is ready to sin mortally, by stealing or in another way, for the sake of delight in food.

2. If one causes grave harm to health.

3. If one renders himself unfit for a grave office.

4. If one becomes unable to pay debts, or dissipates the goods of the family.

5. If through crapula he violates fasting or abstinence.

6. If it is the cause of another grave sin or of grave scandal; for example, if clerics publicly frequent banquets.

980. Observations. - 1. Gluttony taken broadly, insofar as it also includes drunkenness, is a capital vice.

2. The sins of gluttony are not among the greatest. This is so not from the matter, for sins about divine things are graver; nor from the side of the sinner, because they are alleviated by the necessity of food and by the difficulty of discerning and moderating what is suitable. Yet from the side of the effect they can have great magnitude, insofar as they are the occasion and accidental cause of many sins.

THIS vice is opposed to Abstinence, which is an integral part of Temperance. It is defined by D. Bonaventure p. 5. Cent. sect. 25. and in Opusc. declaratorio term. Theologiae: and in Diaeta, tit 1. cap. 8. Gluttony is an immoderate love of eating. To this vice also drinking belongs, insofar as it is a part of nourishment, and in this sense it is defined by the holy Doctor: Gluttony is an immoderate love of nourishment. Under another aspect, however, drinking, insofar as it exceeds unto insanity, pertains to drunkenness, as Tanner notes disp. 3. quaest. 3. dub. 3., and D. Bonaventure here.

The holy Doctor notes, second, four differences of Gluttony from D. Isidore lib. 2. sent. cap. 42.: What, How much, When, and How. What pertains to the thing itself: When, if one desires it before the lawful time: How much, is referred to immoderacy: How, if one desires it too eagerly.

According to D. Gregory lib. 30. moral. cap. 13. there are five differences, comprehended in this verse:

Praepropere, laute, nimis, ardenter, studiose.

PRAEPROPERE pertains to taking food before the proper time: Laute pertains to the substance of the food, when namely it is in itself precious and delicate: Nimis has regard to the quantity of food. Ardenter is considered on the side of the appetite. Studiose, on the side of cognition. Isidore comprehends these two last differences under the one that is the fourth manner.

The five daughters of Gluttony are, namely, Inept Joy, Buffoonery, Uncleanness, Much-Talking, and Dulness of mind, or of sense, in understanding.

INEPT joy is a will exciting lust in taste through exterior sports, and afterward excited by it.

BUFFOONERY is a will exciting the lust of taste through carnal words, and afterward moved in it.

UNCLEANNESS is a will desiring lust in taste continuously through excessive taking of food to itself.

MUCH-TALKING is a will, by a multiplication of words, intending to preserve lust in taste.

DULNESS of mind is a will of preserving the lust of one's own flesh, absorbed, despising to understand spiritual things. The same D. Thomas has art. 5. and 6.

According to Isidore in Deuter. cap. 16. there are two daughters of Gluttony: Comessation in food, and Drunkenness in drink. Comessatio is called Castrimargia, as the holy Doctor notes in Diaeta, tit. 1. cap. 8. It is called Castrimargia from Castro and Mergo, because it plunges all things into the castle of the belly. Drunkenness is called as it were extra-Bria; for Bria was anciently the name of a cup, which was the measure of drink: See the holy Doctor, and there you will read outstanding things.

According to Cassian lib. 5. de spiritu Castrimargiae, cap. 2. there are four species. The first is to eat before the proper time, or more often than is fitting, beyond necessity, in the manner of beasts. The second is, with excessive avidity and impetus, to call certain persons, like wolves and hungry dogs. The third, to fill oneself too much. The fourth, too delicately, as the holy Doctor relates de profectu Religiosi lib. 1. cap. 36., where he also sets forth the remedies of gluttony, which see in it; for I do not transcribe them, because they are long and outstanding, contained in that source, which consult.

The holy Doctor asserts lib. 3. Comp. Theol. cap. 27. that Gluttony of its genus is a venial sin, because the appetite of eating, by its nature, is not subject to the dominion of the will, but is in us by nature, which can be in five ways. First, if it is a mere appetite for food, and this is no fault; nor even is the delight following the food a sin, insofar as it is ordered against no defect of the contrary food; for these things are purely natural, in which there is neither merit nor demerit. Second, if to the appetite of necessity there is joined an appetite of delight and pleasure in food, and this is venial sin: Third, if there is there a transgression of a precept, as if one breaks without necessity the fast of the Church, or eats meats forbidden to him under a moral precept. Fourth, when the appetite of eating is with lust, or when it adheres with excessive and formal affection to the delight of food, and this is mortal. Fifth, if it leads into such a habit as makes the whole life of a man assigned to delights of this kind, and this is near to mortal. Almost the same S. Thomas Valencia has disp. 9. quaest. 3. puncto 1., Tannerus disp. 3. quaest. 3. dub. 3.

He hands down in the Confessional, moreover, how the penitent is to be interrogated in confession concerning this vice, according to the three degrees of gluttony. First, if he has stuffed himself, and frequently, and has preferred feasting to the love or delight of God, so that doing any good thing did not delight him. Second, when he is unwilling to fast, or fasts uncleanly, drinking wine before dinner. Third, if he eats so that he may be stronger for sinning. Let him ask also according to the species of gluttony adduced, whether he has sinned too often in them? whether he has used various foods? whether he has sought new ones? precious ones? whether he has eaten harmful things for pleasure, especially in infirmity?

On Gluttony the holy Doctor has outstanding things from the holy Fathers in the Pharetra, lib. 2. cap. 12.

D. Gregory lib. 31. cap. 17. From the belly of gluttony arise inept joy, buffoonery, uncleanness, much-talking, dulness of sense in understanding, and lib. 30. cap. 15: In five ways the vice of Gluttony tempts us. Sometimes need anticipates the times. Sometimes indeed it does not anticipate the time, but seeks finer foods. Sometimes it seeks that whatever is to be taken be prepared more carefully. Sometimes again it accords both with the quality of the foods and the time, but exceeds the measure of refreshment in the very quantity of the foods. And cap. 14: Sometimes indeed what it desires is cheap, and yet by that heat of immense desire it sins the worse. An example of the first is found in Jonathan: of the second in the Israelites: of the third in the sons of Eli: of the fourth in Ezechiel: of the fifth in Esau.

D. Isidore de sum. bono, lib. 2. cap. 43. sent. 8. Let him attend to the punishment of burning riches to whom is the abundance of feasts, whose such poverty there was in hell among the fires, as great as here had been the plenty of feasts.

He adds, moreover, many practical propositions from the Fathers.

D. Gregory in Past. part. 3. cap. 2. admon. 20. Gluttony attends upon those given to it, superfluity of speech, levity of work, and luxury: but the abstinent are often attended by impatience and sadness, and often also by the fault of pride.

D. Bernard in Apol. ad Guliel. Abb. before the middle: Among animals of large bodies nature has given none so small a mouth, in proportion to the size of the body, as to man, which was done for the commendation of temperance and for the detestation of Gluttony. Seneca says: Obeying the belly, we live in the place of animals, not of men. And serm. de convers. ad cler. cap. 12. The pleasure of the throat, which is esteemed so great today, scarcely has the length of two fingers; it does not last except as long as that passage through the gullet lasts, and for that passage Lady Gluttony wills that so many and such great things be prepared for her.

From what has been said I assert, first, that Gluttony is a sin, and indeed mortal, if either one places his end in it, or omits some precept. It is proved from the Fathers adduced. D. Gregory loco ultimo, etc.

The reason of the holy Doctor is, because Gluttony is an inordinate appetite against reason, and if the end is placed in it, it is a grave inordinateness, as happens in every matter, as Valencia admonishes loc. cit., and Tanner, and D. Thomas art. 2. with D. Bonaventure loco citato.

I assert, second, that Gluttony is not the greatest sin. So D. Thomas art. 3. according to D. Gregory lib. 33. moral. cap. 11., saying that carnal vices are of lesser fault; because necessity is admixed to it, as S. Gregory says 30. moral. cap. 28.

Per accidens, however, it is grave enough because of its evil effects, as Ezech. cap. 6. intimates.

I assert that the five species of Gluttony adduced are distinct, even though they seem to be distinguished only from the circumstances. The reason is, because they have different motives in the genus of Gluttony. But moral species are diversified from these. For in the one who seeks delicate foods, concupiscence is excited from the very species of the food. In the one, however, who anticipates the time, he is disordered from impatience of delay. And the same is evident in the others, as Tanner admonishes num. 40. from D. Thom. ad argumenta, and D. Bonaventure locis adductis.

The holy Doctor in speculo animae, cap. 3. admonishes that the anticipation of those who wish to eat at once upon rising from bed, in the manner of brute beasts from bad habit, even without appetite, is grave sin, and can scarcely happen but that it proceeds from a mortal root.

Likewise in frequency he says it can be mortal, whence comessatio is numbered among the works of the flesh excluding from the kingdom of God, cap. 5. ad Galatas.

I assert, fourth, that to feed on human flesh is mortal. For thus they are gravely prohibited Genes. 9. The reason is, because food is ordered to the sustenance of human life, and therefore it ought to be something inferior in body to that which ought to feed on it, as a means to an end. Therefore natural light dictates that nothing nobler than human flesh itself is rightly used for food, as Valencia argues. It is confirmed by Victoria, for the eating of flesh is against the observance due to humankind.

From which both deduce that not even in extreme necessity is it lawful to feed on human flesh, or on the dead, against Cajetan quaest. 148. art. 2. and Tostatus in 6. cap. lib. 4. Regum.

It is proved, because of itself it is intrinsically evil, no less than to have intercourse with brutes for the sake of preserving the species, as D. Thomas indicates art. 4. ad 3. And if it were not such, it would already be lawful in sieges, which is false; for if at any time it was done, it was judged horrible, as Josephus relates lib. 7. de Bello Iudaico, cap. 8., as is had in 4. Reg. 6.