That no misunderstanding may attend the discussion, we must define at the outset, what we mean by that domestic slavery which we defend. By this relation we understand the obligations of the slave to labour for life, without his own consent, for the master. The thing, therefore, in which the master has property or ownership, is the involuntary labour of the slave, and not his personality, or his soul. A certain right of control over the person of the slave is incidentally given to the master by his property in the bondsman's labour; that is, so much control as is necessary to enable him to secure the labour which belongs to him. But we repeat, it is not the person, but the labour of the slave, which is the master's property. This is substantially the definition 95 of Paley, an enemy of slavery; and it is obviously correct; it expresses the general result of the laws of all modern nations which have had slaves, touching11 that relation.
The abolitionists clamorously insist upon a different definition, which makes the master claim property in the very personality of the slave, in his soul, in the highest capacities which connect him with his God, and in his very being. According to this description, slavery converts the responsible, rational being, into a mere12 thing, a chattel13, a commodity, by converting him into mere property of another man. The motive14 of this preposterous15 definition is obvious enough. One of the most astute16 of American Abolitionists has been candid17 enough to avow18 it, saying that if our definition be adopted, there is an end of the discussion; for every logician21 must see that it is absurd to declare the mere ownership of one man's labour by another, an essential and necessary moral wrong; which is the character it suits them to ascribe to slavery. Their object is so to represent it, that it shall appear a self-evident injustice22, and the apologist shall be overwhelmed and silenced by a foregone prejudice. For, if it gave a literal ownership in the person and being of the slave, which can belong to none but the Creator; if it made not only his labour, but his conscience, the property of the master, destroying his moral responsibility, it would indeed dehumanize him, and would be an iniquity23 indefensible by any fair mind. The trick of securing the victory before the contest begins, by raising a false issue, is not very novel. The utter absurdity24 of applying such a definition to African slavery in America, appears from this: 96 that it is contrary to the whole tenour of the legislation which establishes and regulates the institution among us. These laws, first, legislate25 for the slave, as to his own conduct, as a responsible human being, govern him by precepts27 sanctioned by rewards and punishments, and require of him intelligent obedience28 to the same moral rules which are enforced on his master. Second, the laws assign to the master precisely29 that amount of control over his slave's person which they suppose (whether correctly or not is no concern to us in this argument) to be incidental to his property in the servant's labour; and no more. Third, they protect the person, being, and moral responsibility of the slave against his own master. If the master kills him, it is murder, by the law. The slave's Sabbath is secured to him by the law. If the master force him to commit a crime, the former is held by the law guilty therefor, as accessory before the fact: and the latter is also held to his personal responsibility for it. And last, the law treats the slave so fully31 as a rational and responsible human, that it even bestows32 on him the right of litigation against his own master, in one case. Any African setting up a plea of unlawful detention35 in bondage36, against his master, is allowed to sue in forma pauperis, in the courts of law. How could the fact be more clearly defined, that the institution of slavery treats the slave as a rational human being, and gives the master property in nothing but his labour?
Yet Senator Sumner points triumphantly37 to the words of the South Carolina statute38 as proving that slavery makes the servant a mere thing; and all smaller Abolitionists have caught up his special pleading. The 97 cane39 of Mr. Brooks41 having given him, as it seems, a special taste for things South Carolinian, he hunted up a clause where the law of that State declares, that slaves and their children shall be held in every respect as "chattels42 personal." This proves beyond a peradventure, he says, that the law reduces the slave to a mere thing, as though he were an ox or bureau. Yet, a hundred other laws of South Carolina treat him as a responsible man! Any honest mind will perceive the explanation, at once; which is, that the lawyers of South Carolina were not aiming, in this law, to settle the question of the moral nature of slavery; but to decide whether property in a slave should be regarded as pertaining43 to the real, or to the personal estate of a citizen; and in deciding it, they very properly had more regard to legal perspicuity44 than to ethical45 accuracy of definition. Let us suppose that among the statutes46 of the British Parliament, there should be one (as there very probably is) declaring that when a master mechanic dies, having an indentured47 apprentice48, the unfinished term of service of this apprentice should be held as belonging to his personal effects, and should be so used for the benefit of his heirs or creditors49. And let us suppose, farther, that in defining this fact, some such words as these should be used: that said apprentice should be held in every respect, as pertaining unto the personal estate of the deceased. Then, the same logic20 would prove that the British laws reduce an apprentice to a mere chattel! But we have a better illustration of its folly51. God says, Genesis xxvi. 14: "Isaac had possessions of flocks, and herds52, and servants." Leviticus, xxv. 45: "Of the children of strangers 98 that do sojourn53 among you, of them shall you buy: ... and they shall be your possession." Exodus54, xxi. 20, 21: "And if a man smite55 his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die under his hand: he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money." Does God's law dehumanize the slave, and reduce him to a mere chattel? We repeat, then, that, according to the slave institutions of the Southern States, it is only the labour of the servant which belongs to the master, and is treated as property.
Let it be understood, then, from the beginning, that we are not inquiring into the moral character of that thing which Abolitionists paint as domestic slavery; a something horrid56 with the groans57 of oppressed innocence58 and the clang of unrighteous stripes; a something which aims to reduce a man to a brute59, and denies him his natural right to serve his Creator and save his soul. We begin by asserting that these things, if they ever exist in fact, are not domestic slavery, but the abuses of it. We are not the apologists of them: we no more defend them than do the Abolitionists. In this discussion we have nothing more to do with them, except to express, once for all, our strong abhorrence60 and reprobation61 of all such unlawful abuses of a lawful34 institution. It has been a favourite trick of our opponents, to represent the abuses of the relation so prominently and odiously62, that the defender63 of slavery shall be held up to the abhorrence of the publick as the defender of the abuses. Especially if he is a clergyman, (and necessity has thrown our side of this discussion very much into the hands of Southern clergymen,) do 99 they raise a holy clamour, representing the unnatural64 wickedness of a desecrating65 of the sacred office to apologize for such iniquities66. Their object is to raise a prejudice against us in advance, which will deprive us of a dispassionate and just hearing. With all dispassionate and just readers, for whom alone we write, it should be enough for us to repeat emphatically, that it is only the relation of domestic slavery as authorized69 by God, that we defend; and not the abuses it has received at the hands of wicked men. The parental70 authority, and civil government, and the operations of God's own church, are often abused also. The intelligent reader, and especially the intelligent Englishman, will remember how triumphantly this shallow sophism71 of arguing against a thing from its abuses, is exposed by Burke, in his reply to Bolingbroke's posthumous72 assault on Christianity, the ironical74 "Defence of Natural Society." Such argument from abuses can only be just when it is shown that the wrongs pointed75 out are not incidental abuses, but legitimate76, and necessary, and uniform consequences of the institution itself. But that the incidental evils of African slavery among us are not such, is abundantly proved by the simple fact, that thousands of masters held slaves among us, and yet perpetrated none of these abuses. About the relative frequency of such abuses, we shall have something to say at a subsequent place. Enough now to point to the fact, that by the vast majority of our servants they were unfelt, so that they cannot be necessary parts of the system.
We conclude these preliminary definitions by requesting the reader to note well what is the moral character 100 which we understand the Bible to assign to slavery. We do not admit that it is a thing in itself evil, but yet attended with such circumstances, in the eyes of many merciful and humane77 masters who have found themselves by inheritance unwilling78 slaveholders, that a change would be attended with still greater mischiefs79: so that they are excusable for its continuance for a time. This is the view of many moderate and kind anti-slavery men; it is not ours. We do not hold that slaveholding is only justified81 as belonging to that class of wrongs, to which the laws of Moses assigned polygamy, which ought not to have been done, but which, when done, cannot be undone83, except by the perpetrating of a greater wrong. We assert that the Bible teaches that the relation of master and slave is perfectly84 lawful and right, provided only its duties be lawfully85 fulfilled. When we say this, we shall not be understood as saying that all men ought to live in this relation, notwithstanding the wide diversities of their condition and characters, or that it would be politic86, or even right, for all. But we say that the relation is not sin in itself; but may be perfectly righteous and innocent, and not merely excusable. And we are free to confess that unless the Bible taught us this truth, we should be obliged to hold with the decided87 Abolitionists. We could never be of the number of those, who attempt to transmute88 the essential traits of moral right and wrong, at the demand of expediency89, and to excuse the continuance of a radical90 injustice, by the inconvenience of repairing it. Duty belongs to man; consequences to God. 101
§ 2. The Curse upon Canaan.
The student of history perceives that, whatever may be the moral character of domestic slavery, it is one of the most hoary91 institutions of the human race. It has prevailed in every age and continent, and under patriarchal, monarchical92, despotic, aristocratic, republican and democratic governments; while secular93 history gives us no account of its origin. But Sacred Writ1 informs us, and traces it to the earlier generations of the human family as refounded after the flood. In Genesis, ix. 20 to 27, we have the following brief narrative94: "And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: and he drank of the wine and was drunken: and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japhet took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him; and he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japhet and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant."
In explanation of it, the following remarks may be made; on which the majority of sound expositors are agreed. In this transaction, Noah acts as an inspired prophet, and also as the divinely chosen, patriarchal 102 head of church and state, which were then confined to his one family. God's approbation95 attended his verdict, as is proved by the fact that the divine Providence96 has been executing it for many ages since Noah's death. Canaan probably concurred97 in the indecent and unnatural sin of Ham. As these early men were extremely ambitious of a numerous and prosperous posterity98, Ham's punishment, and Canaan's, consisted in the mortification99 of hearing their descendants doomed101 to a degraded lot. These descendants were included in the punishment of their wicked progenitors102 on that well-known principle of God's providence, which "visits the sin of the fathers upon the children," and this again is explained by the fact, that depraved parents will naturally rear depraved children, unless God interfere103 by a grace to which they have no claim; so that not only punishment, but the sinfulness, becomes hereditary104. Doubtless God's sentence, here pronounced by Noah, was based on his foresight105 of the fact, that Ham's posterity, like their father, would be peculiarly degraded in morals; as actual history testifies of them, so far as its voice extends.
Some have been weak enough to draw a justification107 of slavery from the fact, that the bondage of Canaan's posterity is predicted. This logic the Abolitionists have, of course, delighted to expose; it was easy to show, by sundry108 biblical instances, like that of the Assyrian employed to chastise109 Israel, and then punished by God for his own rapacity110, that it is no justification of one's acts to find that God, in his inscrutable and holy workings, has overruled them to the effectuation of his own righteous, secret purposes. And our opponents, 103 with a treachery fully equal to the folly of our unwise advocates, usually represent this as nearly the whole amount, and the fair exemplar, of our biblical argument. Such is not the use we design to make of this important piece of history.
It does in the first place, what all secular history and speculations111 fail to do: it gives us the origin of domestic slavery. And we find that it was appointed by God as the punishment of, and remedy for (nearly all God's providential chastisements are also remedial) the peculiar106 moral degradation112 of a part of the race. God here ordains113 that this depravity shall find its necessary restraints, and the welfare of the more virtuous114 its safeguard against the depraved, by the bondage of the latter. He introduces that feature of political society, for the justice of which we shall have occasion to contend; that although men have all this trait of natural equality that they are children of a common father, and sharers of a common humanity, and subjects of the same law of love; yet, in practice, they shall be subject to social inequalities determined115 by their own characters, and their fitness or unfitness to use privileges for their own and their neighbours' good.
But second: this narrative gives us more than a prediction. The words of Noah are not a mere prophecy; they are a verdict, a moral sentence pronounced upon conduct, by competent authority; that verdict sanctioned by God. Now if the verdict is righteous, and the execution blessed by God, it can hardly be, that the executioners of it are guilty for putting it in effect. Can one believe that the descendants of Shem and Japhet, with this sentence in their hands, and the divine 104 commendation just bestowed117 on them for acting118 unlike Ham, could have reasonably felt guilty for accepting that control over their guilty fellow-men which God himself had assigned? For the vital difference between the case of the Assyrians, when their guilty ambition was permissively employed by God to punish the back-slidings of his own people, and the case of Shem and Japhet, is this: The Assyrians were cursed by God for doing their predicted work, in the very sentence; Shem and Japhet were blessed by Him in the very verdict which assigns Canaan as their servant.
It may be that we should find little difficulty in tracing the lineage of the present Africans to Ham. But this inquiry119 is not essential to our argument. If one case is found where God has authorized domestic slavery, the principle is settled, that it cannot necessarily be sin in itself. It is proper that we should say, in conclusion, that this passage of Scripture120 is not regarded, nor advanced, as of prime force and importance in this argument. Others more decisive will follow.
§ 3. Abraham a Slaveholder.
The references to the bondsmen of Abraham and his son Isaac are the following: Genesis xiv., 14, "And when Abram heard that his brother," (or relative, viz.: Lot,) "was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan. And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night," etc. Genesis xvii., 10, etc., "This is my covenant121 which ye shall keep, between me and you, and thy seed 105 after thee; every man-child among you shall be circumcised," ... v. 12, "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in your generations; he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house and he that is bought with thy money must needs be circumcised," and v. 26, 27, "In the self-same day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son; and all the men of his house, born in the house and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him." Genesis xviii. 17 to 19, "And the Lord said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do: seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty122 nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment123: that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him." Genesis xx. 14, "And Abimelech" (seeking reconciliation124 with Abraham for the wrong intended to Sarah his wife, at God's command,) "took sheep and oxen, and men-servants and women-servants, and gave them unto Abraham, and restored him Sarah his wife." Genesis xxiv. 35, Eliezer, when seeking a wife for Isaac, says: "And the Lord hath blessed my master greatly, and he is become great; and he hath given him flocks, and herds, and silver, and gold, and men-servants, and maid-servants, and camels and asses125." And Genesis, xxvi. 12, 14, it is said of Isaac: "And the Lord blessed him. And the man waxed great and went forward and grew until he became very great. For he 106 had possession of flocks, and possession of herds, and great store of servants."
It appears then, that Abraham, "the friend of God," and Isaac, the most holy and spotless of the Patriarchs, were great slaveholders. But before pursuing the argument farther, it may be prudent126 to remove the quibble that these servants were not slaves, in the sense of our African slaves, but only humble127 clansmen, retainers, or hirelings. At least one writer would prove this by the fact that Abraham did not fear to arm three hundred and eighteen of them. For had they been real slaves, says he, they would not have continued so one day after getting arms in their hands. The retort most appropriate would be, that Abraham was not afraid to arm his slaves, though actual slaves, because there were no saucy128, meddling129, Yankee Abolitionists in those days to preach insubordination and make ill blood between masters and servants. But, more seriously, what shall we say of the professed130 reasoning which assumes the very point in debate? viz.: that slavery is an evil; and thence infers the conclusion that these could not be slaves, because they did not seize the power to burst the bonds of such an evil when placed in their reach? If their bondage was not evil, which is the question sub judice in this debate, then they would not necessarily desire to burst from it. And that these were actual slaves is clear, because the words for bondsman and bondsmaid here used are, in every case, ebed and shippheh, which are defined by every honest lexicon131 to mean actual slaves, which are used in that sense alone everywhere else in the Hebrew Scriptures132, which are contrasted in the book of Leviticus with the "hired servant," or sasir. 107 A part of these servants were bought from foreigners with Abraham's money. They are represented along with his very sheep and oxen as his property.
Abraham and Isaac then, were all their lives literal slaveholders, on a large scale. Now we do not argue that this fact alone, coupled with the other, that they were good men, proves that slaveholding is innocent. The Abolitionists, fond of an easy victory on a false issue, always hasten to represent this as the amount of the argument; and then, their reply is obvious—that the example of truly good men is no rule of ethics133 for us, unless supported by the expressed or implied approval of God; for good men are imperfect, and many of their errors are recorded, by the honesty of the sacred writers, for our warning—that Abraham himself was guilty of falsehood to Abimelech, King of Gerar, and especially that he was betrayed into the gross sin of concubinage. Hence they say, Abraham's example no more proves slaveholding innocent than concubinage. We reply, that all these remarks, except the last, are perfectly just; but they have no application to the case, because God's sanction of Abraham's example as a slaveholder is expressly found in the narrative. The cases of slaveholding and concubinage are totally different. First, because the origin of the latter sin in the accursed lineage of Cain, and the act of the murderer Lamech, is impliedly stamped with God's condemnation134, (Genesis iv. 19,) whereas the origin of domestic slavery is given us in the righteous sentence of God for depraved conduct. Second, Abraham fell into the sins of falsehood and concubinage but once, under violent temptation. There is no evidence that 108 either he or Isaac ever practised them again, but both lived and died without one recorded qualm of conscience, in the practice of slaveholding, and made it one of their last acts, before passing to the judgment-seat of God, to bequeath their slaves, as property, to their heirs. Third, in Genesis xxiv. 35, and xxvi. 12, 14, it is represented that the bestowal135 of a multitude of slaves on Abraham and Isaac was a mark of the divine favour. In the first passage, it is indeed only the pious136 Eliezer who states this; but in the second, it is stated of Isaac by the sacred narrative itself. Now to represent God as blessing137 a favoured saint by bestowing138 providentially gifts which it is a sin to have, implicates139 God in the sin. Fourth, in Genesis xviii. 17 to 19, Jehovah expresses his love for Abraham, approbation for his character, and purpose to exalt140 him as a blessing to all nations, because "He knew him that he would command his children and his household after him, that they shall keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment." What was this "household," distinct from his children? Hebrew usage and the context answer with one voice, his slaves. Then, God's high favour to Abraham was explained by the fact that he foresaw the patriarch would govern his children and slaves religiously and righteously. Now we ask emphatically, does a holy God bless a misguided and sinning man for the manner in which he perseveres141 in the sinful practice, be that manner what it may? If the relation of master and slave were sinful, would not the virtue142 of terminating the relation at once, so far transcend143 the questionable144 credit of using it to make the wronged and oppressed victim live piously145, that it 109 would be impossible for God to bestow33 his peculiar praise on the latter, where the former was lacking? There is no righteous way to perpetuate146 an unrighteous relation. Therefore God's blessing Abraham for his good government of his slaves, is proof that it is not a sin to have slaves to govern.
But, last and chiefly, we have a still stronger fact to present. When Abraham was directed in Genesis xvii., 10, etc., to circumcise himself as a sign of the covenant between God and him, he was also directed to circumcise all his male children. The parental relationship was made the ground of their inclusion in the same covenant. And God directed his slaves also, "born in his house, or bought with his money of any foreigner," to be circumcised along with him. The parental tie brought his children under the religious rite2 of circumcision; the bond of master and servant brought his servants under it. Here then, we have the relationship of domestic slavery sanctioned, along with the parental and filial, by God's own injunction, by a participation147 in the holiest sacrament of the ancient church. Would a holy God thus baptize an unholy relation? Would he make it the ground of admission to a religious ordinance148? To see a feeble illustration of the absurdity of such a conclusion, consider what would be thought of a minister of the New Testament149, in which our Saviour150 has forbidden a plurality of wives, if that minister should desecrate151 the marriage ceremonial of his church, knowingly, to sanctify the union of the felon152 in the act of bigamy? Such a desecration153 would surely be not less shocking in the Author, than in a minister of religion. 110
And here, the favourite plea of the anti-slavery men fails entirely—that Abraham lived in the dawn of religious light; that the revelation given him was only partial, and that while he possessed154 the rectitude of conscience which would have made him relinquish155 all sinful relations, if enlightened as to their true character, the customs of his age misled him to commit things which Christians156 afterwards taught to be sinful, and that therefore, these things, excusable in him because of his ignorance, would be wickedness in us. There is some truth in these statements, but they have nothing on earth to do with this example; because the circumcision of the slaves was God's act, and not Abraham's. God knows all things. He is perfectly holy and unchangeable. If he had seen that slavery is intrinsically wrong, and had intended at some future day to declare it so, would he at this time have sanctioned it by making it the ground of a solemn ordinance of religion? As we shall see, this cry of the imperfection of the Old Testament revelation is of Socinian origin, and is essentially157 false, in the sense in which it is uttered. But be it as just as any statement could be, it has no application here; because our whole inference is drawn158 from the acts of God himself, and not of an Old Testament Saint.
§ 4. Hagar remanded to Slavery by God.
Sarah, in a season of desperation at her childless condition, seems to have been tempted159 to imitate the corrupt160 expedient161 which was prevalent among the Canaanites around her, and which still prevails in the East. According to this usage, the chief wife, or wife 111 proper, gives to her husband a concubine from among her slaves, as a sort of substitute for herself; and the offspring of the connexion is regarded as her own child. Abram, misled by evil example, and by the solicitations of his wife—the person who would have had the best right to complain of his act—concurred temporarily in the arrangement, and received his Egyptian slave Hagar as an inferior wife. The favour of her master, and the prospective163 honour of being the mother of offspring, which has always been exceedingly prized by Oriental women, so inflated164 the servant with impudence165, that she no longer treated her mistress with decent respect. When Sarah bitterly complained of this, Abram replied by reminding her that Hagar was still her slave; and that she was entitled, as a mistress, to compel her to observe a suitable demeanour. When Sarah proceeded to exert this authority, probably administering corporal punishment to Hagar for some instance of impertinence, the latter ran away, and pursued the direction which led to her native country, Egypt. It was then that the angel of the Lord found her "by the fountain in the way to Shur. And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt166 thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands." Genesis xvi., 7 to 9. He then proceeded to unfold the future of her unborn son, and Hagar obeyed his commands. From verses 10th and 13th, we learn certainly that this angel was a Divine Person. For, in the first place, he promises Hagar, "I will multiply thy seed exceedingly;" but none but the Almighty167 112 could truthfully make such a promise in his own name, as it is here made. In the latter place we are informed that it was the Lord (in Hebrew, Jehovah; the most characteristic and incommendable name of God) that spake unto her; and Hagar called his name: "Thou God, seest me." We remark again, that Hagar was certainly in the relation of domestic slavery, and not of a hired servant, to Abraham and Sarai. She is called Shiphheh, which is the regular word for female slave in the Old Testament. Had she not been an actual slave, Sarai would never have presumed, according to Oriental usage, to dispose of her person in the manner related. Here, then, we have God, himself, the Angel Jehovah, who can be no other than the Second Person of the Trinity, Christ, commanding this fugitive169 to return into the relation of domestic slavery, and submit to it. Can that relation be in itself sinful? To assert this, would make our adorable Saviour particeps criminis. He cannot have required a soul to return into a sinful state. He never requires of his servants more than their duty; so that if Sarai had possessed no real and just title to Hagar's services as a slave—if the claim had been a mere imposition and injustice, she would not have been required to submit to it. Abolitionists attempt to evade171 this by saying that Hagar was instructed to return and submit to bondage on the same principle on which Christ instructs us, when wrongfully smitten172 on one cheek to turn the other likewise. This, say they, by no means implies that the smiting173 was just. We reply, that the parallel cannot be drawn. Had Hagar been in the hand of an unjust mistress, it would have been her duty in Christian73 forbearance to 113 "take it patiently, though buffeted174 wrongfully." But she was not now in Sarai's hand. She had successfully escaped it, and was far advanced in her' journey to her native Egypt, where she evidently expected to find friends and shelter. Under these circumstances, it is preposterous to say that the grace of Christian forbearance required of her to return voluntarily whither no claim of right drew her, and subject herself to unjust and unauthorized persecution175 again. We ask, Does Christ so press the duty of peaceableness, as to sacrifice to it the whole personal well-being176 and rightful interests of the innocent victim of unjust aggression177? Is his chief object, in these lessons of forbearance, to gratify and pamper178 the lust50 of persecution in the aggressor? Is there no right of just self-defence left? Surely he teaches us that we owe a duty to our own life and well-being, as well as to our fellow-men's. When we are wronged, we are to defend this right only in such ways as become a son of peace—a man of forgiveness. But the same Saviour who taught his disciples179 to render good for evil when injured, also commanded them: "When they persecute180 you in one city, flee ye into another." When a peaceable escape can be secured from injustice, it is both the privilege and duty of the most forgiving Christian on earth to use it. Now Hagar was in such a condition; had her subjection to Sarai been, as the Abolitionists say slavery is, a condition of unjust persecution, the Saviour's instructions to her would doubtless have been: "Now that you have escaped the injustice of her that wronged you, flee to another city." His remanding her to Sarai shows that the subjection was lawful and right. 114
It has been objected again, that we cannot argue this, unless we are willing to argue the lawfulness181 of concubinage; because to send Hagar back to her bondage was to resign her again to this relation. We utterly182 deny it. The Lord only says to her: "Return to thy mistress and submit thyself under her hands;" not "Return to thy master's bed." There is not one particle of proof that Abram continued his improper183 connexion with her after these transactions. Nor is there more worth in the remark, that subsequently, the same divine Being met Hagar wandering in the same wilderness184, and did not require her to return, but assisted her journey. The answer is, that she was then under no obligation to return; because her master had fully manumitted her, and bestowed her freedom on her.
§ 5. Slavery in the Laws of Moses.
God, in accordance with his covenant with Abraham, set apart Israel, through the ministry185 of Moses, to be his peculiar and holy people, his witness in the midst of an apostate186 world, to keep alive the services and precepts of true morality and true religion, till, in the fulness of time, Jesus Christ should come in the flesh, and begin the Christianizing of all nations. To effect these objects, He renewed his revelation of the eternal and unchangeable moral law, from Sinai, in the Decalogue; and he also gave, by the intervention187 of Moses, various religious and civil laws, which were peculiar to the Jews, and were never intended to be observed after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The great object of all this legislation, was to set apart the Jewish nation as a holy people, peculiarly dedicated188 to purity of moral 115 life, and the maintenance of true religion, amidst corrupt and idolatrous generations. To effect this, God found it necessary to raise a barrier to familiar social intercourse189 between the Israelites and their corrupting190 heathen neighbours; and sundry of the expedients191 by which this barrier was raised, were prohibitions192 of usages which would have been, in themselves, neither right nor wrong, but morally indifferent, as the eating of pork. Some of those laws having the same object in view, required acts in their original nature indifferent; such as circumcision and eating the Passover. But it is totally inconsistent with the holiness of God, and with his purpose of setting Israel apart to a holy life, that any of those peculiar laws should require acts in themselves wicked, or forbid things in themselves morally binding194. It would be impiety195 to represent God as capable of commanding what is wrong; and to enjoin196 sin in order to make people holy, would be a folly and a contradiction. God's revealed will, so far as it is revealed for a rule of life, either permanent or temporary, can contain nothing but what is right, and pure, and just. If it had been a positive moral duty to eat pork, this holy God would never have made the prohibition193 to eat it a part even of the temporary, ceremonial laws of his servants. Had it been morally wrong to kill, roast, and eat a lamb, God would never have enjoined197 on them the institution of the Passover. These conclusions are as plain as the alphabet.
Now then, if we find any particular thing either sanctioned or enjoined, in the peculiar ceremonial or civil institutions of Moses, it does not prove that thing to be morally binding on us, in this century, or necessarily 116 politic and proper for us; but it does prove it to be, in its essential moral character, innocent. That thing cannot be sin in itself. So, Jno. David Michaelis, in his Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, Book 1, Art. 1. This is the important and just distinction. The fact that animal sacrifices were required in the ceremonial laws of Moses, does not prove that it is our duty, under the Christian dispensation, to offer sacrifices, or that it is appropriate for us to do so; but it does prove that the act would be in itself innocent (though useless) for us, and for every one, if it had not been forbidden in subsequent revelation. Otherwise, a holy God would never have enjoined or sanctioned it at all.
Therefore, the fact that God expressly authorized domestic slavery, among the peculiar and temporary civil laws of the Jews, while it does not prove that it is our positive duty to hold slaves, does prove that it is innocent to hold them, unless it has been subsequently forbidden by God. Now then, let us see what God authorized by Moses. Exodus xxi. 2 to 6: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, (Ebed,) six years he shall serve; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him unto the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl198; and he 117 shall serve him forever," (that is, probably, until the year of Jubilee199, which came once in fifty years. See Leviticus xxv. 41.)
This, cries the anti-slavery man, was only temporary servitude. We reply: but it was involuntary servitude, though temporary. It gave to the master the right to compel the labour of the servant without his consent; and this is a sanction of the principle of our institution. What will be said then to the following? Leviticus xxv. 44 to 46: "Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land; and they shall be your possession," (your property.) "And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever; but over your brethren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule over one another with rigour."
The antithesis200 in the position of the two laws shows that these heathen slaves were not to go free at the year of Jubilee, like Hebrew slaves. They are to be bondmen forever. They and their children, slaves by birth, are to descend100 from father to son, as heritable property. There was to be "no seventh year freedom here; there is no Jubilee liberation." So says the learned divine, Moses Stuart, of Andover, himself an anti-slavery man. And so say all respectable Hebrew antiquaries. Indeed it would be hard to construct language defining more strongly and fully all those features 118 of domestic slavery most contradictory201 to the theory of Abolitionists. They were to be bought and sold. They were heritable property: (Mr. Sumner would prove hence, "mere chattels.") Here is involuntary slavery for life, expressly authorized to God's own peculiar and holy people, in the strongest and most careful terms. The relation, then, must be innocent in itself. With what show of candour can men say, in the face of a sanction so full, so emphatic67, so hearty202, that Moses, finding the hoary institution of domestic slavery so deeply rooted that it would be impossible then to abolish it, tolerated it, and limited it by all the restrictions203 which he could apply, calculated to cut off its worst horrors? We ask, was Moses the author of these laws, or God? Does the Almighty, the Unchangeable, the Holy, connive204 at moral abuses, like a puny205 human magistrate206, and content himself, where he dare not denounce a sin, with pruning207 its growth a little? We ask again: Is this gloss208 borne out by the facts? Was Moses, in fact, timid in assailing209 old and deeply-rooted vices170, and in demanding that they should be eradicated210 wholly? Let his uncompromising legislation against Idolatry and Adultery answer. The truth is, such writers as use the above language know nothing about the true nature of domestic slavery, and draw their inferences only from their prejudices. God and Moses knew it well. They knew that it was an institution which, when not abused, was suitable to the character of the depraved persons for whom it was designed, and wholesome211 and benign212. Hence, they prohibit all inhuman213 abuses of it; and then they do not tolerate it merely as an unavoidable wrong; but they expressly legalize it, as 119 right. An honest mind can make nothing less of their words. But in Numbers xxxi. 25 to 30, and Joshua ix. 20 to 27, we have instances which are, if possible, still stronger. In the former passage the people of Midian had been conquered by God's command, and the captives and spoils brought home; the captives to be slaves for life according to the law of Leviticus, ch. xxv. The book of Numbers then proceeds: "And the Lord spake unto Moses saying, Take the sum of prey214 that was taken both of man and of beast, thou and Eleazer the priest and the chief fathers of the congregation; and divide the prey into two parts; between them that took the war upon them who went out to battle, and between all the congregation. And levy215 a tribute unto the Lord of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses and of the sheep: Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazer the priest, for an heave-offering of the Lord. And of the children of Israel's half thou shalt take one portion of fifty, of the persons, of the beeves, of the asses and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the Lord." In verses 40th and 46th, we read farther that the "Lord's tribute of the persons" of the first half, "was thirty and two persons," and of the second half, "three hundred and twenty." Here God commands a portion of these slaves to be set apart to a sacred use, and dedicated to himself, that they might become the property of the ministers of religion. The second instance is not contained in the books of Moses, but in the history of his successor Joshua: we group it 120 with the former, for its similarity. In Joshua, ch. ix., we are told that while he was triumphantly engaged in the destruction of the condemned216 heathen tribes of Palestine, according to God's command, the people of Gibeon, a part of the doomed race, despairing of a successful defence, adopted this stratagem217 to save themselves. Under pretence218 that they were not of Palestine at all, but from a very distant place, their ambassadors obtained from the leaders of the Israelites a very stringent219 oath of amity220. This pledge the elders incautiously gave, without seeking the divine direction. In a very few days they learned to their astonishment221, that these Gibeonites lived in the very heart of Palestine, close to the spot where they were encamped, and that they were of the very race which they were appointed to destroy. But they had sworn in the name of Jehovah not to destroy them. In this state of things, the princes and Joshua determined to punish them for their falsehood, and at the same time substantially observe their oath, by leaving them unhurt, but reducing them to slavery as the serfs of the Tabernacle and its ministers. In verses 23d and 27th, Joshua told them: "Now, therefore, ye are cursed, and there shall none of you be freed from being bondmen," (Ebed, i. e., slaves,) "and hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God." "And Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation and for the altar of the Lord, even unto this day, in that place which he should choose." This compact the Gibeonites seem gladly to have accepted. In 2d Samuel, ch. xxi., we find this same race of serfs still living among the Israelites, under the same compact. King 121 Saul, David's predecessor222, having broken it by killing223 many of them, God himself interposed, and required a satisfaction for the breach224. Here we have evidence that the slaves of heathen origin were not freed by the Jubilee, for centuries had now elapsed and they were still slaves. We also see evidence that the contract made by Joshua was not regarded by God as unlawful. In this case, also, we find God accepting a religious offering of slaves for the service of his sanctuary226. And these, while real slaves, did not belong each to an individual master, but were slaves to an institution and a caste, a form of bondage always justly regarded as less benevolent227 than the former.
Yet men say slavery is a wicked relation, which God only tolerated and curbed228 in the Old Testament. The Lord's claiming his tythe of slaves (as of cattle and wheat) seems to the candid man a strange way of expressing bare tolerance229! Was it not enough to leave the laity230 of the "holy people" polluted with the sin of slaveholding, without proceeding231 by his own express injunction to introduce the "taint232" into the still more sacred caste of the priesthood? Did the God of all holiness direct a part of the wages of iniquity to be set apart for his holy uses? Perhaps it may be said that He regarded the holy use as sanctifying the unholy source of the offering. The surmise233 is blasphemous234. But see Deuteronomy xxiii. 18: "Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore or the price of a dog into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow19: for even both these are abomination to the Lord thy God." To set apart to God's use property wickedly acquired was an insult to his holiness: and to offer Him even what was acquired 122 by the sale of an animal ceremonially unclean, was resented as a type of the same sin. The consecration235 of these slaves to sacred uses is therefore the strongest possible proof that slaves are lawful property. To sum up: The divine permission and sanction of slavery to the very people whom God was setting apart to a holy life, the consecration of slaves as property to a sacred purpose, the regulating by law of the duties flowing from the relation, all prove that it was then a lawful and innocent one. Otherwise, we should have the holy God teaching sin. If it was innocent once in its intrinsic nature, it is innocent now, unless it has been subsequently prohibited by God. But no such prohibition can be shown.
§ 6. Slavery in the Decalogue.
Although the Ten Commandments were given along with the civil and ceremonial laws of the Hebrews, we do not include them along with the latter, because the Decalogue was, unlike them, given for all men and all dispensations. It is a solemn repetition of the sum of those duties founded on the natures of man and of God, and on their relations, enjoined on all ages alike. It contains nothing ceremonial, or of merely temporary obligation; (which is binding merely because it is commanded;) but all is of perpetual, moral obligation. It claims to be, rightly explained, a perfect and complete rule. Our Saviour repeatedly adopts it as the eternal sum of all duty, on which hang all the law and the prophets, that is, all Scripture. Accordingly, we find that the mode of its republication gave to this Decalogue a grandeur236 and weight shared by no secular or 123 ceremonial precepts. Deuteronomy v. informs us that it was delivered first, thus receiving the precedence, that it was spoken by God himself in articulate words, heard by all the quaking multitude, in tones of thunder, from the smoking summit of Sinai, with the terrible concomitants of angelic hosts, devouring237 fire, lightnings and earthquakes; that God added no more, thus refusing to all the subsequent precepts the honour of such a publication, and that He himself then engraved238 it on stone, signifying by the imperishable material, the perpetuity of this law.
Hence, all the principles of right stated or implied in this Decalogue, are valid239, not for Hebrews only, but for all men and ages. They rise wholly above the temporary and positive precepts, which were only binding while they were expressly enjoined. They have not been, because they cannot be, repealed241 or modified; they are as immutable242 as God's perfections. In our Saviour's words, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot243 or one tittle of this law shall not pass away."
Now, our argument is, that in this short summary, the relation of master and slave is mentioned twice; and that in modes which are a recognition of its lawfulness. It is introduced as a basis of duties and rights founded upon it, and those rights are defended, and those duties enjoined. But if it were an unlawful relation, what rights could grow out of it except the slave's right to have it broken? And what duties of the master could be founded on it, except the duties of discontinuing, repenting244 of, and repairing its wrongs? In the 4th Commandment, Exod. xx. 10, it is made the master's duty to cause the slave to observe the Sabbath 124 day. After the 8th Commandment had forbidden injury to our fellow-man's property in act, by overt245 theft, the 10th, (v. 17,) prohibits its injury even in thought by corrupt coveting246. And in the enumeration248 of possessions thus carefully covered from assault, are men-servants (ebed) and maid-servants, along with real estate and cattle. If the reader would feel the strength of the argument implied in these facts, let him ask himself what would have been his amazement249, if, after the description which God's word gives of the authority, righteousness, purity, and perpetuity of this Decalogue, he had read in it, that highwaymen and pirates are commanded to enforce Sabbath observance on their injured victims, and that we must not covet247 our neighbour's concubine, or the stolen goods in his possession? And this, without hint of the guilt30 of violence, concubinage, and theft. It would be impossible for either understanding or conscience to reconcile itself to the anomaly; he would feel, inevitably250, that God was incapable251 of such implied sanction of sin.
§ 7. Objections to the Old Testament Argument.
To state the arguments from the laws of Moses and the Decalogue has not required a large space, because those conclusions are so plain and sound, that many words were not needed. But the cavils252, objections and special pleadings of the Abolitionists teem254 like the frogs of Egypt, engendered255 in the mire256 of ignorance and prejudice, so numerous because so worthless. And when it is seen that we perhaps expend257 more space in their refutation than we did in the direct argument, 125 the heedless reader may possibly be inclined to say to himself, that there must be something wrong in an argument to which so much can be objected. We beg him to observe then, that we pause to explode these objections, not because they are of any weight, but because we purpose to make thorough work with our opponents. When we have finished these rejoinders, we shall take the impartial8 reader to witness, that not only the weight, but the least appearance of plausibility258 in these cavils has been blown into thin air. And then we shall have the right to infer that their number indicates, not the questionable character of our positions, but only a fixed259 and blind prejudice against the truth in our adversaries260.
It is objected that domestic slavery among the Hebrews was a much milder institution than in Virginia, and that, therefore, we have no right to argue from the one to the other. If it were true that Hebrew slavery was milder, it might show that we were wrong in the way in which we treated our slaves; but it could not prove that slaveholding was wrong. The principle would still be established, for the lawfulness of the relation. But let it be noted261 that the peculiar mitigations of slavery affected262 only slaves of Hebrew blood, not Gentiles. Whatever may have been the leniency263 of the system, the state of the Gentile slaves showed the essential features of slavery among us, the right to the slave's labour for life without his consent, property in that labour, the right to buy, sell and bequeath it; the right to enforce it on the slave by corporal punishments, which might have any degree of severity short of death. (See Exod. xxi. 20, 21.) Virginians had no interest 126 to contend for any stricter form of slavery than this.
Second. It is said that the permission to buy, possess, and bequeath slaves of heathen origin, which we have cited, related only to the seven condemned tribes of Canaan, and was part of the divinely appointed penalty for their wickedness. Even such a man as Dr. Wayland, of Brown University, Rhode Island, has adopted this plea, thus justifying264 in a prominent instance the assertion that Abolitionism is grounded in a shameful265 ignorance of facts. The answer to the plea is, that it is expressly contrary to fact. The Hebrews were positively266 prohibited to reserve any of the seven condemned nations for slaves, and were enjoined to exterminate267 them all, lest the contagion268 of their vile116 morals should corrupt Israel. On the other hand, they were told that they might buy them slaves of any of the other Gentile nations around them, with whom they were to live on terms of national amity. (See Deuteronomy, xx. 10 to 18.) After directing the policy of the Hebrews towards conquered enemies from these nations, and permitting the enslaving of the captives, Moses proceeds: (v. 15.) "Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. But of the cities of these people which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save nothing alive that breatheth; but thou shalt utterly destroy them, namely, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee; that they teach you not to do after all their abominations," etc. (See also, Josh. vi. 17 to 21; viii. 26; x. 28 to 32, etc., etc.) 127
Third. It is objected from these very injunctions, that the examples of the commands given to the Israelites are no rules for us; that God commanded them to exterminate the seven nations of Canaan; but if we should therefore proceed to attack and destroy a neighbouring nation which had not assailed269 us, it would be a horrible wickedness. It is asked: Were the fanatics270 of the English Commonwealth271 in the 17th century correct when they justified their barbarities upon royalists by the examples of Joshua's slaughter272 of the Amorites, and Samuel's of Amalek? And we are told that our argument from Hebrew slavery is of the same absurd kind.
We reply: We willingly accept the instances. God's command to Joshua and Samuel to exterminate the Canaanites and Amalek, does prove that killing is not necessarily murder. This very instance gives us an unanswerable argument against those who oppose all capital punishments as wrong. And just so we employ the other instance, which our assailants say is parallel—Hebrew slavery—to prove that slaveholding is not necessarily sinful. But the instances are not parallel. The sanction of domestic slavery was a statute law for all generations of Hebrews; the command to exterminate the seven tribes imposed a specific task on certain individuals. It is absurd to confound an executive command, given to particular men for the once, under particular circumstances, with the sanctions of a permanent institution, designed to descend from generation to generation. The command to exterminate the seven guilty tribes was the former, the permission to hold slaves the latter. True, the example of Joshua in 128 blotting273 these tribes from existence, is no authority for us to do likewise, unless we also can show a direct divine commission authorizing274 us for a special case. But neither was that example authority to any subsequent generation of Hebrews, after Joshua, to exterminate any other pagan tribe. Will any one say that the authority given by Moses to his fellow-citizens to hold slaves was not just as good to enable subsequent generations of Hebrews to hold slaves? Prejudice cannot carry sophistry275 so far. There is, therefore, no analogy between the two cases, in the point necessary for grounding the objection to our argument.
Fourth. It is said that Moses himself commanded that a runaway276 slave should not be surrendered to his master; thereby277 plainly teaching that slaves had a right to their liberty, if they could escape. This, it is urged, proves that there must be some mistake in our conclusions. Of course, this passage is quoted triumphantly as settling the question against the fugitive slave-law, required by the late Constitution of the United States. It is found in Deuteronomy xxiii. 15, 16: "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: he shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best; thou shalt not oppress him."
We need no better answer to this citation162, than that given by a Northern divine already named, who is no friend to slavery, Rev3. Moses Stuart. He says: "The first inquiry of course is: Where does his master live? Among the Hebrews or among foreigners? The language of the passage fully developes this, and answers 129 the question. He has 'escaped from his master unto the Hebrews.' (The text says, unto thee, i. e., Israel.) 'He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in one of thy gates.' Of course then, he is an immigrant, and did not dwell among them before his flight. If he had been a Hebrew servant, belonging to a Hebrew, the whole face of the thing would be changed. Restoration or restitution278, if we may judge by the tenour of other property laws among the Hebrews, would have surely been enjoined. But, be that as it may, the language of the text puts it beyond a doubt, that the servant is a foreigner and has fled from a heathen master." Mr. Stuart then proceeds to assign obvious reasons why a foreign servant escaping from a heathen master was not to be restored: that the bondage from which he escaped was inordinately279 cruel, including the power of murder for any caprice; and that to force him back was to remand him to the darkness of heathenism, and to rob him of the light of true religion, which shone in the land of the Hebrews alone. He adds: "But if we put now the other case, viz.: that of escape from a Hebrew master, who claimed and enjoyed Hebrew rights, is not the case greatly changed? Who could take from him the property which the Mosaic280 law gave him a right to hold? Neither the bondsman himself, nor the neighbours of the master to whom the fugitive might come. Reclamation281 of him could be lawfully made, and therefore must be enforced." This explanation forces itself upon our common sense. To suppose that Moses could so formally authorize68 and define slavery among the Hebrews, and then enact282 that every slave might gain his liberty by merely stepping over the brook40 or 130 imaginary line which separated the little cantons of the tribes from each other, or even by going to the next house of his master's neighbours, and claiming protection, whenever petulance283, or caprice, or laziness should move him thereto; this is absurd; it is trivial child's play. It takes away with one hand what it professed to give with the other. The fact that slavery continued to exist from age to age, is proof enough that the Hebrews did not put the Abolitionist construction on the law. To this agree the respectable Hebrew antiquarians, as Horne, etc.
Fifth. It is urged that Revelation was in its plan progressive, like the morning twilight284; that the Mosaic code was the early dawn; that God, for wise reasons, left many points in darkness, which the full daylight of the Gospel has since shown to be sin. And, therefore, several practices, which we are now taught to be sinful, may have been ignorantly followed by good men, and tolerated by this imperfect legislation of God's law. Yet if we, who enjoy a fuller revelation, should indulge in these practices, we should be guilty and disobedient.
Grant this, for the present. Grant, for argument's sake, that it may have been consistent with the plan of revelation to make known at first only a partial rule of duty, leaving some sins unmentioned. Yet surely it was not consistent with the truth and holiness of God, to throw a false light in that partial revelation, on those parts of man's duty which he professed to reveal! So far as any revelation from God goes, it must be a true and righteous one. If it undertook to fix a point of duty, it must fix it correctly, whatever else it might 131 omit. Otherwise; we should have a holy, true, and good Creator, while professing285 to guide man to duty and life, misleading him to sin and death. Let now the reader note that the lawfulness of slavery was not one of the points omitted. God spake expressly upon it; and what he said was to authorize it.
But we do not admit that Moses' was an incomplete revelation in the sense of the Abolitionists. They are fond of representing the New Testament revelation as completing, amending286, and correcting that of the Old. Its details the New Testament does complete; but if it were amended287 or corrected by any subsequent standard of infallible truth, this would prove it not truly inspired. Indeed, the history of theological opinion shows plainly enough that this anti-slavery view of Old Testament revelation is Socinian and Rationalistic. Modern Abolitionism in America had, in fact, a Socinian birth, in the great apostasy288 of the Puritans of New England to that benumbing heresy289, and in the pharisaism, shallow scholarship, affectation, conceit290 and infidelity of the Unitarian clique291 in the self-styled American Athens, Boston. It is lamentable292 to see how men professing to be evangelical are driven by blind prejudices against Southern men and things, to adopt this skeptical293 tone towards God's own word. The ruinous issue has been seen in the case of a minister of the Gospel, who, after floundering through a volume of confused and impotent sophisms, roundly declares that if compelled to admit that the Bible treated slavery as not a sin in itself, he would repudiate294 the Bible rather than his opinions.
But we point these objectors to that Saviour who said, in the full meridian295 of revealed light of this Old 132 Testament law: "Whosoever shall keep these commandments shall enter into eternal life;" and to the fact that the Decalogue itself twice recognizes the right of the master. Will they say that this too was an old, partial, and imperfect revelation? Not so says the sweet Psalmist of Israel: "The law of the Lord is perfect." Psalms296, xix. 7. Whatever Abolitionists may cavil253, Jesus Christ acknowledged no more perfect rule of morals than the Ten Commandments, as expounded297 by the "law and the prophets."
Sixth. An objection has been raised against the Old Testament argument, from the supposed permission of, or connivance299 at, polygamy and causeless divorce in the laws of Moses. This objection has been urged by Dr. Channing, the celebrated300 Unitarian, and since, in a more exact form, by Dr. Wayland. In substance it is this: That polygamy was allowed by the Old Testament law, and divorce for a less cause than conjugal301 infidelity was expressly permitted by Moses. But both these are as expressly forbidden as sinful by our Saviour. Matthew xix. 3 to 9. Therefore the main assertion in defence of slavery, on which the argument rested, does not hold: for these two instances show that a thing is not intrinsically innocent because it was permitted for a time to the Jews.
Our reply is, that both the premises303 of the objection are absolutely false. Polygamy and capricious divorce never were authorized by Old Testament law, in the sense in which domestic slavery was; and, second, the latter was never prohibited in the New Testament, as polygamy and such divorces expressly are. Either of these facts, without the other, makes the objection invalid304, 133 as we shall show; but we shall establish both. Before doing this, however, we would ask: Suppose these assertions of Drs. Wayland and Channing proved that God expressly permitted polygamy and causeless divorce to his own chosen and holy people, and that Jesus Christ yet denounced these things as sins; what is gained? Not only is this part of our defence of slavery overthrown305, but the holiness of God is also overthrown; or else the inspiration of the Scriptures. (The latter would be a result evidently not very repugnant to Socinians and their sympathizers.) For then these Scriptures would make Him the teacher of sin to the very persons whom he was setting apart to peculiar holiness. If God did indeed authorize polygamy and causeless divorce in the Old Testament law, then the only inference for the devout306 mind is, that those things were then innocent, and would still be so, had not Christ afterwards forbidden them. Now, when we pass into the New Testament, and find that domestic slavery (which these objectors would make the parallel of polygamy and divorce without just cause) is not forbidden there, as the latter two were, but is again permitted, authorized and regulated, we must conclude that it is still innocent, as it must have been when a holy God allowed it to his holy people.
But the first part of the objectors' premise302 is also false; polygamy and causeless divorce never were sanctioned by Moses as domestic slavery was. Even admitting the more ignorant rendering307 of the matter, how wide is the difference in God's treatment of the two subjects! Slaves are mentioned as lawful property, not only in the biographies of God's erring308 and fallible servants, 134 but in his own legislation; the acquisition of them is a blessing from him; their connexion with their masters is made the basis of religious sacraments; property in slaves is protected by laws of divine enactment309; and the rights and duties of them and their masters defined. But when we pass to the subjects of plurality and change of wives, while we see the lives of imperfect, though good men, candidly310 disclosing these abuses, no legislative311 act recognizes them, except in the single case of divorce. In all God's laws and precepts, He always says wife, not wives, so carefully does He avoid a seeming allowance of a plurality. The Decalogue throws no protection around concubines, against the coveting of others. The rights and duties of polygamists are never defined by divine law, save in seeming exceptions which will be explained. How unlike is all this to the legislation upon slavery!
What has been already said leaves our argument impregnable. But so much misapprehension exists about the two cases, that the general interests of truth prompt a little farther separate discussion of each. The two enactments312 touching divorce which present the supposed contradiction in the strongest form, are those of Moses in Deuteronomy xxiv. 1 to 4, and Matthew xix. 3 to 9. These the reader is requested to have under his eye. The form of the Pharisees' question to Christ, ("Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?") concurs313 with the testimony314 of Josephus, in teaching us that a monstrous315 perversion316 of Moses' statute then prevailed. The licentious317, and yet self-righteous Pharisee claimed, as one of his most unquestioned privileges, the right to repudiate a wife, after the lapse225 135 of years, and birth of children, for any caprice whatsoever318. The trap which they now laid for Christ was designed to compel him either to incur319 the odium of attacking this usage, guarded by a jealous anger, or to connive at their interpretation320 of the statute. Manifestly Christ does not concede that they interpreted Moses rightly; but indignantly clears the legislation of that holy man from their licentious perversions321, and then, because of their abuse of it, repeals322 it by his plenary authority. He refers to that constitution of the marriage tie which was original, which preceded Moses, and was therefore binding when Moses wrote, to show that it was impossible he could have enacted323 what they claimed. What then did Moses enact? Let us explain it. In the ancient society of the East, females being reared in comparative seclusion324, and marriages negotiated by intermediaries, the bridegroom had little opportunity for a familiar acquaintance even with the person of the bride. When she was brought to him at the nuptials326, if he found her disfigured with some personal deformity or disease, (the undoubted meaning of the phrase "some uncleanness,") which effectually changed desire into disgust, he was likely to regard himself as swindled in the treaty, and to send the rejected bride back with indignity327 to her father's house. There she was reluctantly received, and in the anomalous328 position of one in name a wife, yet without a husband, she dragged out a wretched existence, incapable of marriage, and regarded by her parents and brothers as a disgraceful incumbrance. It was to relieve the wretched fate of such a woman, that Moses' law was framed. She was empowered to exact of her proposed 136 husband a formal annulment329 of the unconsummated contract, and to resume the status of a single woman, eligible330 for another marriage. It is plain that Moses' law contemplates331 the case, only, in which no consummation of marriage takes place. She finds no favour in the eyes "of the bridegroom." He is so indignant and disgusted, that desire is put to flight by repugnance332. The same fact appears from the condition of the law, that she shall in no case return to this man, "after she is defiled," i. e., after actual cohabitation with another man had made her unapproachable (without moral defilement) by the first. Such was the narrow extent of this law. The act for which it provided was divorce only in name, where that consensus333, qui matrimonium facit, (in the words of the law maxim,) had never been perfected. The state of social usages among the Hebrews, with parental and fraternal severity towards the unfortunate daughter and sister, rendered the legislation of Moses necessary, and righteous at the time; but "a greater than Moses" was now here; and he, after defending the inspired law-giver from their vile misrepresentation, proceeded to repeal240 the law, because it had been so perverted334, and because the social changes of the age had removed its righteous grounds. Let the Abolitionists show us a similar change in the law of domestic slavery, made by Christ, and we will admit that the moral conditions of the relation have changed since Moses' day.
The case of the polygamist is still clearer; for we assert that the whole legislation of the Pentateuch and of all the Old Testament is only adverse335 to polygamy. As some Christian divines have taught otherwise, we 137 must ask the reader's attention and patience for a brief statement. Polygamy is recorded of Abraham, Jacob, Gideon, Elkanah, David, Solomon; but so are other sins of several of these; and, as every intelligent reader knows, the truthful168 narrative of holy writ as often discloses the sins of good men—for our warning, as their virtues336 for our imitation. And he who notes how, in every Bible instance, polygamy appears as the cause of domestic feuds337, sin, and disaster, will have little doubt that the Holy Spirit tacitly holds all these cases up for our caution, and not our approval. But, then, God made Adam one wife only, and taught him the great law of the perpetual unity325 of the twain, just as it is now expounded by Jesus Christ. (Genesis ii. 23, 24, with Matthew xix. 4 to 6.) God preserved but one wife each to Noah and his sons. In every statute and preceptive338 word of the Holy Spirit, it is always wife, and not wives. The prophets everywhere teach how to treat a wife, and not wives. Moses, Leviticus xviii. 18, in the code regulating marriage, expressly prohibits the marriage of a second wife in the life of the first, thus enjoining339 monogamy in terms as clear as Christ's. Our English version hath it: "Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister to vex340 her, to uncover her nakedness, besides the other, in her lifetime." Some have been preposterous enough to take the word sister here in its literal sense, and thus to force on the law the meaning that the man desiring to practise polygamy may do so provided he does not marry two daughters of the same parents; for if he did this, the two sisters sharing his bed would, like Rachel and Leah, quarrel more fiercely than two strangers. But the word "sister" 138 must undoubtedly341 be taken in the sense of mates, fellows, (which it bears in a multitude of places,) and this for two controlling reasons. The other sense makes Moses talk nonsense and folly, in the supposed reason for his prohibition; in that it makes him argue that two sisters sharing one man's bed will quarrel, but two women having no kindred blood will not. It is false to fact and to nature. Did Leah and Rachel show more jealousy342 than Sarah and Hagar, Hannah and Peninnah? But when we understand the law in its obvious sense, that the husband shall not divide his bed with a second mate, the first still living, because such a wrong ever harrows and outrages343 the great instincts placed in woman's heart by her Creator, we make Moses talk truth and logick worthy344 of a profound legislator. The other reason for this construction is, that the other sense places the 18th verse in irreconcilable345 contradiction to the 16th verse. This forbids the marriage of a woman to the husband of her deceased sister; while the 18th verse, with this false reading, would authorize it.
Once more: Malachi, (chapter ii. 14, 15.) rebuking346 the various corruptions347 of the Jews, evidently includes polygamy; for he argues in favour of monogamy, (and also against causeless divorce,) from the fact that God, "who had the residue348 of the Spirit," and could as easily have created a thousand women for each man as a single one, made the numbers of the sexes equal from the beginning. He states this as the motive, "that he might seek a godly seed;" that is to say, that the object of God in the marriage relation was the right rearing of children, which polygamy notoriously hinders. Now the commission of an Old Testament prophet was 139 not to legislate a new dispensation; for the laws of Moses were in full force; the prophets' business was to expound298 them. Hence, we infer that the laws of the Mosaic dispensation on the subject of polygamy had always been such as Malachi declared them. He was but applying Moses' principles.
To the assertion that the law of the Old Testament discountenanced polygamy as really as the New Testament, it has been objected that the practice was maintained by men too pious towards God to be capable of continuing in it against express precept26; as, for instance, by the "king after God's own heart," David. Did not he also commit murder and adultery? Surely there is no question whether Moses forbids these! The history of good men, alas350, shows us too plainly the power of general evil example, custom, temptation, and self-love, in blinding the honest conscience. It has been objected that polygamy was so universally practised, and so prized, that Moses would never have dared to attempt its extinction351. When will men learn that the author of the Old Testament law was not Moses, but God? Is God timid? Does he fear to deal firmly with his creatures? But it is denied that there is any evidence that polygamy was greatly prevalent among the Hebrews. And nothing is easier than to show, that if it had been, Moses was a legislator bold enough to grapple with it. What more hardy352 than his dealing353 with the sabbatical year, with idolatry? It is objected that the marriage of the widow who was childless to the brother of the deceased, to raise up seed to the dead, presents a case of polygamy actually commanded. We reply, no one can show that the next of kin80 was 140 permitted or required to form such marriage when he already had a wife. The celebrated J. D. Michaelis, a witness learned and not too favourable354, says, in his Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, of this law, "Nor did it affect a brother having already a wife of his own." Book III., ch. vi., § 98. It is objected that polygamy is recognized as a permitted relation in Deuteronomy xxi. 15-17, where the husband of a polygamous marriage is forbidden to transfer the birthright from the eldest355 son to a younger, the child of a more favoured wife; and in Exodus xxi. 9, 10, where the husband is forbidden to deprive a less favoured wife of her marital356 rights and maintenance. Both these cases are explained by the admitted principle, that there may be relations which it was sin to form, and which yet it is sinful to break when formed. No one doubts whether the New Testament makes polygamy unlawful; yet it seems very clear that the apostles gave the same instructions to the husbands of a plurality of wives entering the Christian church. There appears, then, no evidence that polygamy was allowed in the laws of Moses.
We have thus shown that the objection of Dr. Channing to our Old Testament argument for the lawfulness of domestic slavery, is false in both its premises. First, it is not true that Moses sanctioned polygamy and causeless divorce in the sense in which he sanctioned slavery. And second, if he did, it would prove that those practices were lawful until they were prohibited by our Redeemer; but domestic slavery has met no such prohibition from him, and is therefore lawful still. If not, why did the divine Reformer strike down the two "sister 141 sins," and leave the third, the giant evil, untouched? There is but one answer: He did not regard it as a sin.
If too much space has been devoted357 to this objection, the apology is, that it is a subject much misunderstood by Christian divines. The explanation is, that the study of Hebrew antiquities358 has, in our day, been left so much to German rationalists and secret Socinians; the late essays of British and Yankee scholars being to so great a degree servile imitations of theirs. But these skeptical literati of Germany, while wearing the clergyman's frock for the sake of the emoluments359 of an established church, have usually been unsanctified men, harbouring the most contemptuous views of Old Testament inspiration. The reader will bear in mind that, whether he is convinced, with us, that Moses actually prohibited polygamy, or not, the refutation of the Abolitionist objection is still perfectly valid.
The seventh and last objection against our Old Testament argument consists of various passages from the Hebrew prophets, which denounce the oppression of the poor, and the withholding360 of the labouring man's wages. Every phrase which sounds at all like their purpose is violently seized by the Abolitionists, and pressed incontinently into the service of condemning361 slavery, without regard to the sacred writer's intention or meaning. Were all the texts thus wrested362 discussed here, this section would be swelled363 into a book. A few passages which our opponents regard as their strongest will be cited, therefore; and the reply to these will be an answer to all. One such is Isaiah, lviii. 6: "Is not this the fast which I have chosen, to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo82 the heavy burdens, and to let the 142 oppressed go free; and that ye break every yoke364?" Another is found in Jeremiah xx. 13: "Woe365 unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers366 by wrong; that useth his neighbour's services without wages, and giveth him not for his work." Another is in Jeremiah xxxiv. 17: "Therefore, thus saith the Lord: Ye have not hearkened unto me in proclaiming liberty every man to his brother, and every man to his neighbour." And to find a scriptural stone to pelt367 the fugitive slave-law, they quote Isaiah xvi. 3: "Hide the outcasts; betray not him that wandereth."
Now, one would think that it should have given some pause to these perversions of Scripture, to remember that these same prophets were undoubtedly slaveholders. Witness, for instance, Elisha, who was so large a slaveholder as to have eleven ploughmen at once, and who, after he devoted himself exclusively to his prophetic ministry, still had his servants, Gehazi and others. (2 Kings, v. 20, and vi. 15.) How could they have aimed such denunciations at slave-owners, and escaped the sarcasm368, "Physician, heal thyself?" It should have been remembered again, that Moses' laws, in which slaveholding was expressly sanctioned, were enacted by authority just as divine as that by which Isaiah and Jeremiah preached; that Moses was more a prophet than even they—"the greatest of the prophets;" that his laws were still in full force; that they bore to these prophets' instructions the relation of text to exposition; and that always the great burden of their accusations369 against their guilty countrymen was, that they had forsaken370 Moses' statutes. Were the guardians371 and expounders of the Constitution armed with power not only to repeal, 143 but to vilify372, the very law which they were appointed to expound? May the sermon contradict its own text?
Before these rebukes373 of oppression can be applied374, then, as God's condemnation of domestic slavery, it must be proved that in His view slavery is oppression. To take this for granted is a begging of the whole question in debate. But not only is it not proved by any such texts; it is obvious from the above remarks, that it cannot be proved by them, unless God can be made to contradict himself. But when we examine a little the connected words of these prophets themselves, we learn from them what they do mean; and we see an instance, ludicrous if it were not too painful, of the heedless folly with which the Word of God is abused. Thus, in Isaiah, lviii. 6, 7, we proceed to the very next words, and learn that the duty in hand consists in "bringing to their homes the poor that are cast out," and being charitable to "their own flesh." Were the Gentile slaves of the Hebrews "their own flesh" in the sense of the Old Testament, i. e., their kindred by blood? Manifestly, the phrase intends their fellow-citizens of Hebrew blood in distress375. Are slaveholders in danger of sinning by driving away from their houses their domestic slaves; and do they need objurgation to make them receive them back? Such is the "infinite nonsense" forced upon Isaiah's words by Abolitionists. There is, then, no reference here to the emancipation376 of Gentile slaves; but to the duties of charity, justice and hospitality towards the oppressed of their fellow-citizens. And if the passage has any reference to servants, it is only to the sin of detaining Hebrew servants beyond the Sabbatical year's release. 144
When we turn to Jeremiah xxii. 13, a glance at the connexion shows us that the woe against using a neighbour's services without wages, is denounced against Shallum, the wicked king of Judah, who built his palaces, not by his domestic servants, but by unlawfully impressing his political subjects. Such is the marvellous accuracy of Abolitionist exposition! So in Jeremiah xxxiv. 17, which rebukes the Jews for not "proclaiming every man liberty to his brother," one little question should have staggered our zealous377 accusers: Were Gentile slaves "brethren" to Jews, in the sense of the prophet? And we have only to carry the eye back to verse 14, to see him explaining himself, that they did not comply with the Mosaic law, "at the end of seven years to let go every man his brother a Hebrew, which hath been sold unto thee." From the obligation of that law, the masters of Gentiles were expressly excepted.
But the illustration of crowning folly is Isaiah xvi. 3, which is so boldly wrested to countenance349 the harbouring of runaway slaves. The words are not the language of the prophet at all! The chapter is a dramatic picture of the distress of the pagan nations near Judea, and especially of Moab, one among them, in a time of invasion which Isaiah denounces upon them in punishment for their sin; and this verse represents the fugitive Moabites as entreating378 Jews for concealment379 and protection when pursued by their enemies. So that there is no slave nor slave-owner in the case at all; nor does the prophet's language contain any thing to imply whether it was righteous or not for the Jews to grant the request of these affrighted sinners in the hour of their retribution. 145
We have now reviewed, perhaps at too much length, the various impotent attempts made to escape from the meshes380 of our inexorable Old Testament argument. It is an argument short, plain, convincing. Although every thing enjoined on the Hebrews is not necessarily enjoined on us, (because it may have been of temporary obligation,) yet every such thing must be innocent in its nature, because a holy God would not sanction sin to his holy people, in the very act of separating them to holiness. But slaveholding was expressly sanctioned as a permanent institution; the duties of masters and slaves are defined; the rights of masters protected, not only in the civic381 but the eternal moral law of God; and He himself became a slave-owner, by claiming an oblation382 of slaves for his sanctuary and priests. Hence, while we do not say that modern Christian nations are bound to hold slaves, we do assert that no people sin by merely holding slaves, unless the place can be shown where God has uttered a subsequent prohibition. But there is no such place, as the next chapter will show. While we well know that to secret infidels and rationalists, as all Abolitionists are, this has no weight, to every mind which reverences383 the inspiration of the Old Testament it is conclusive384. And let every Christian note, that with the inspiration of the Old Testament stands or falls that of Christ and the apostles, because they commit themselves irretrievably to the support of the former.
点击收听单词发音
1 writ | |
n.命令状,书面命令 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 rite | |
n.典礼,惯例,习俗 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 rev | |
v.发动机旋转,加快速度 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 reverence | |
n.敬畏,尊敬,尊严;Reverence:对某些基督教神职人员的尊称;v.尊敬,敬畏,崇敬 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 zeal | |
n.热心,热情,热忱 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 tempt | |
vt.引诱,勾引,吸引,引起…的兴趣 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 warp | |
vt.弄歪,使翘曲,使不正常,歪曲,使有偏见 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 impartial | |
adj.(in,to)公正的,无偏见的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 impartiality | |
n. 公平, 无私, 不偏 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 docility | |
n.容易教,易驾驶,驯服 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 touching | |
adj.动人的,使人感伤的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 mere | |
adj.纯粹的;仅仅,只不过 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 chattel | |
n.动产;奴隶 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 motive | |
n.动机,目的;adv.发动的,运动的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 preposterous | |
adj.荒谬的,可笑的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 astute | |
adj.机敏的,精明的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 candid | |
adj.公正的,正直的;坦率的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 avow | |
v.承认,公开宣称 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 vow | |
n.誓(言),誓约;v.起誓,立誓 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 logic | |
n.逻辑(学);逻辑性 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 logician | |
n.逻辑学家 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 injustice | |
n.非正义,不公正,不公平,侵犯(别人的)权利 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 iniquity | |
n.邪恶;不公正 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 absurdity | |
n.荒谬,愚蠢;谬论 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 legislate | |
vt.制定法律;n.法规,律例;立法 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 precept | |
n.戒律;格言 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 precepts | |
n.规诫,戒律,箴言( precept的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 obedience | |
n.服从,顺从 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 precisely | |
adv.恰好,正好,精确地,细致地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 guilt | |
n.犯罪;内疚;过失,罪责 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 fully | |
adv.完全地,全部地,彻底地;充分地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 bestows | |
赠给,授予( bestow的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33 bestow | |
v.把…赠与,把…授予;花费 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
34 lawful | |
adj.法律许可的,守法的,合法的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
35 detention | |
n.滞留,停留;拘留,扣留;(教育)留下 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
36 bondage | |
n.奴役,束缚 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
37 triumphantly | |
ad.得意洋洋地;得胜地;成功地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
38 statute | |
n.成文法,法令,法规;章程,规则,条例 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
39 cane | |
n.手杖,细长的茎,藤条;v.以杖击,以藤编制的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
40 brook | |
n.小河,溪;v.忍受,容让 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
41 brooks | |
n.小溪( brook的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
42 chattels | |
n.动产,奴隶( chattel的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
43 pertaining | |
与…有关系的,附属…的,为…固有的(to) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
44 perspicuity | |
n.(文体的)明晰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
45 ethical | |
adj.伦理的,道德的,合乎道德的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
46 statutes | |
成文法( statute的名词复数 ); 法令; 法规; 章程 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
47 indentured | |
v.以契约束缚(学徒)( indenture的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
48 apprentice | |
n.学徒,徒弟 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
49 creditors | |
n.债权人,债主( creditor的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
50 lust | |
n.性(淫)欲;渴(欲)望;vi.对…有强烈的欲望 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
51 folly | |
n.愚笨,愚蠢,蠢事,蠢行,傻话 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
52 herds | |
兽群( herd的名词复数 ); 牧群; 人群; 群众 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
53 sojourn | |
v./n.旅居,寄居;逗留 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
54 exodus | |
v.大批离去,成群外出 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
55 smite | |
v.重击;彻底击败;n.打;尝试;一点儿 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
56 horrid | |
adj.可怕的;令人惊恐的;恐怖的;极讨厌的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
57 groans | |
n.呻吟,叹息( groan的名词复数 );呻吟般的声音v.呻吟( groan的第三人称单数 );发牢骚;抱怨;受苦 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
58 innocence | |
n.无罪;天真;无害 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
59 brute | |
n.野兽,兽性 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
60 abhorrence | |
n.憎恶;可憎恶的事 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
61 reprobation | |
n.斥责 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
62 odiously | |
Odiously | |
参考例句: |
|
|
63 defender | |
n.保卫者,拥护者,辩护人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
64 unnatural | |
adj.不自然的;反常的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
65 desecrating | |
毁坏或亵渎( desecrate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
66 iniquities | |
n.邪恶( iniquity的名词复数 );极不公正 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
67 emphatic | |
adj.强调的,着重的;无可置疑的,明显的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
68 authorize | |
v.授权,委任;批准,认可 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
69 authorized | |
a.委任的,许可的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
70 parental | |
adj.父母的;父的;母的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
71 sophism | |
n.诡辩 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
72 posthumous | |
adj.遗腹的;父亡后出生的;死后的,身后的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
73 Christian | |
adj.基督教徒的;n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
74 ironical | |
adj.讽刺的,冷嘲的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
75 pointed | |
adj.尖的,直截了当的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
76 legitimate | |
adj.合法的,合理的,合乎逻辑的;v.使合法 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
77 humane | |
adj.人道的,富有同情心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
78 unwilling | |
adj.不情愿的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
79 mischiefs | |
损害( mischief的名词复数 ); 危害; 胡闹; 调皮捣蛋的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
80 kin | |
n.家族,亲属,血缘关系;adj.亲属关系的,同类的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
81 justified | |
a.正当的,有理的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
82 undo | |
vt.解开,松开;取消,撤销 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
83 undone | |
a.未做完的,未完成的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
84 perfectly | |
adv.完美地,无可非议地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
85 lawfully | |
adv.守法地,合法地;合理地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
86 politic | |
adj.有智虑的;精明的;v.从政 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
87 decided | |
adj.决定了的,坚决的;明显的,明确的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
88 transmute | |
vt.使变化,使改变 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
89 expediency | |
n.适宜;方便;合算;利己 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
90 radical | |
n.激进份子,原子团,根号;adj.根本的,激进的,彻底的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
91 hoary | |
adj.古老的;鬓发斑白的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
92 monarchical | |
adj. 国王的,帝王的,君主的,拥护君主制的 =monarchic | |
参考例句: |
|
|
93 secular | |
n.牧师,凡人;adj.世俗的,现世的,不朽的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
94 narrative | |
n.叙述,故事;adj.叙事的,故事体的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
95 approbation | |
n.称赞;认可 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
96 providence | |
n.深谋远虑,天道,天意;远见;节约;上帝 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
97 concurred | |
同意(concur的过去式与过去分词形式) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
98 posterity | |
n.后裔,子孙,后代 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
99 mortification | |
n.耻辱,屈辱 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
100 descend | |
vt./vi.传下来,下来,下降 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
101 doomed | |
命定的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
102 progenitors | |
n.祖先( progenitor的名词复数 );先驱;前辈;原本 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
103 interfere | |
v.(in)干涉,干预;(with)妨碍,打扰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
104 hereditary | |
adj.遗传的,遗传性的,可继承的,世袭的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
105 foresight | |
n.先见之明,深谋远虑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
106 peculiar | |
adj.古怪的,异常的;特殊的,特有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
107 justification | |
n.正当的理由;辩解的理由 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
108 sundry | |
adj.各式各样的,种种的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
109 chastise | |
vt.责骂,严惩 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
110 rapacity | |
n.贪婪,贪心,劫掠的欲望 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
111 speculations | |
n.投机买卖( speculation的名词复数 );思考;投机活动;推断 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
112 degradation | |
n.降级;低落;退化;陵削;降解;衰变 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
113 ordains | |
v.任命(某人)为牧师( ordain的第三人称单数 );授予(某人)圣职;(上帝、法律等)命令;判定 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
114 virtuous | |
adj.有品德的,善良的,贞洁的,有效力的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
115 determined | |
adj.坚定的;有决心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
116 vile | |
adj.卑鄙的,可耻的,邪恶的;坏透的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
117 bestowed | |
赠给,授予( bestow的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
118 acting | |
n.演戏,行为,假装;adj.代理的,临时的,演出用的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
119 inquiry | |
n.打听,询问,调查,查问 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
120 scripture | |
n.经文,圣书,手稿;Scripture:(常用复数)《圣经》,《圣经》中的一段 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
121 covenant | |
n.盟约,契约;v.订盟约 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
122 mighty | |
adj.强有力的;巨大的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
123 judgment | |
n.审判;判断力,识别力,看法,意见 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
124 reconciliation | |
n.和解,和谐,一致 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
125 asses | |
n. 驴,愚蠢的人,臀部 adv. (常用作后置)用于贬损或骂人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
126 prudent | |
adj.谨慎的,有远见的,精打细算的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
127 humble | |
adj.谦卑的,恭顺的;地位低下的;v.降低,贬低 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
128 saucy | |
adj.无礼的;俊俏的;活泼的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
129 meddling | |
v.干涉,干预(他人事务)( meddle的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
130 professed | |
公开声称的,伪称的,已立誓信教的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
131 lexicon | |
n.字典,专门词汇 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
132 scriptures | |
经文,圣典( scripture的名词复数 ); 经典 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
133 ethics | |
n.伦理学;伦理观,道德标准 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
134 condemnation | |
n.谴责; 定罪 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
135 bestowal | |
赠与,给与; 贮存 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
136 pious | |
adj.虔诚的;道貌岸然的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
137 blessing | |
n.祈神赐福;祷告;祝福,祝愿 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
138 bestowing | |
砖窑中砖堆上层已烧透的砖 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
139 implicates | |
n.牵涉,涉及(某人)( implicate的名词复数 );表明(或意指)…是起因 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
140 exalt | |
v.赞扬,歌颂,晋升,提升 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
141 perseveres | |
v.坚忍,坚持( persevere的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
142 virtue | |
n.德行,美德;贞操;优点;功效,效力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
143 transcend | |
vt.超出,超越(理性等)的范围 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
144 questionable | |
adj.可疑的,有问题的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
145 piously | |
adv.虔诚地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
146 perpetuate | |
v.使永存,使永记不忘 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
147 participation | |
n.参与,参加,分享 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
148 ordinance | |
n.法令;条令;条例 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
149 testament | |
n.遗嘱;证明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
150 saviour | |
n.拯救者,救星 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
151 desecrate | |
v.供俗用,亵渎,污辱 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
152 felon | |
n.重罪犯;adj.残忍的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
153 desecration | |
n. 亵渎神圣, 污辱 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
154 possessed | |
adj.疯狂的;拥有的,占有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
155 relinquish | |
v.放弃,撤回,让与,放手 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
156 Christians | |
n.基督教徒( Christian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
157 essentially | |
adv.本质上,实质上,基本上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
158 drawn | |
v.拖,拉,拔出;adj.憔悴的,紧张的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
159 tempted | |
v.怂恿(某人)干不正当的事;冒…的险(tempt的过去分词) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
160 corrupt | |
v.贿赂,收买;adj.腐败的,贪污的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
161 expedient | |
adj.有用的,有利的;n.紧急的办法,权宜之计 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
162 citation | |
n.引用,引证,引用文;传票 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
163 prospective | |
adj.预期的,未来的,前瞻性的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
164 inflated | |
adj.(价格)飞涨的;(通货)膨胀的;言过其实的;充了气的v.使充气(于轮胎、气球等)( inflate的过去式和过去分词 );(使)膨胀;(使)通货膨胀;物价上涨 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
165 impudence | |
n.厚颜无耻;冒失;无礼 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
166 wilt | |
v.(使)植物凋谢或枯萎;(指人)疲倦,衰弱 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
167 almighty | |
adj.全能的,万能的;很大的,很强的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
168 truthful | |
adj.真实的,说实话的,诚实的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
169 fugitive | |
adj.逃亡的,易逝的;n.逃犯,逃亡者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
170 vices | |
缺陷( vice的名词复数 ); 恶习; 不道德行为; 台钳 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
171 evade | |
vt.逃避,回避;避开,躲避 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
172 smitten | |
猛打,重击,打击( smite的过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
173 smiting | |
v.猛打,重击,打击( smite的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
174 buffeted | |
反复敲打( buffet的过去式和过去分词 ); 连续猛击; 打来打去; 推来搡去 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
175 persecution | |
n. 迫害,烦扰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
176 well-being | |
n.安康,安乐,幸福 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
177 aggression | |
n.进攻,侵略,侵犯,侵害 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
178 pamper | |
v.纵容,过分关怀 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
179 disciples | |
n.信徒( disciple的名词复数 );门徒;耶稣的信徒;(尤指)耶稣十二门徒之一 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
180 persecute | |
vt.迫害,虐待;纠缠,骚扰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
181 lawfulness | |
法制,合法 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
182 utterly | |
adv.完全地,绝对地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
183 improper | |
adj.不适当的,不合适的,不正确的,不合礼仪的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
184 wilderness | |
n.杳无人烟的一片陆地、水等,荒漠 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
185 ministry | |
n.(政府的)部;牧师 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
186 apostate | |
n.背叛者,变节者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
187 intervention | |
n.介入,干涉,干预 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
188 dedicated | |
adj.一心一意的;献身的;热诚的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
189 intercourse | |
n.性交;交流,交往,交际 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
190 corrupting | |
(使)败坏( corrupt的现在分词 ); (使)腐化; 引起(计算机文件等的)错误; 破坏 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
191 expedients | |
n.应急有效的,权宜之计的( expedient的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
192 prohibitions | |
禁令,禁律( prohibition的名词复数 ); 禁酒; 禁例 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
193 prohibition | |
n.禁止;禁令,禁律 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
194 binding | |
有约束力的,有效的,应遵守的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
195 impiety | |
n.不敬;不孝 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
196 enjoin | |
v.命令;吩咐;禁止 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
197 enjoined | |
v.命令( enjoin的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
198 awl | |
n.尖钻 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
199 jubilee | |
n.周年纪念;欢乐 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
200 antithesis | |
n.对立;相对 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
201 contradictory | |
adj.反驳的,反对的,抗辩的;n.正反对,矛盾对立 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
202 hearty | |
adj.热情友好的;衷心的;尽情的,纵情的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
203 restrictions | |
约束( restriction的名词复数 ); 管制; 制约因素; 带限制性的条件(或规则) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
204 connive | |
v.纵容;密谋 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
205 puny | |
adj.微不足道的,弱小的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
206 magistrate | |
n.地方行政官,地方法官,治安官 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
207 pruning | |
n.修枝,剪枝,修剪v.修剪(树木等)( prune的现在分词 );精简某事物,除去某事物多余的部分 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
208 gloss | |
n.光泽,光滑;虚饰;注释;vt.加光泽于;掩饰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
209 assailing | |
v.攻击( assail的现在分词 );困扰;质问;毅然应对 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
210 eradicated | |
画着根的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
211 wholesome | |
adj.适合;卫生的;有益健康的;显示身心健康的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
212 benign | |
adj.善良的,慈祥的;良性的,无危险的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
213 inhuman | |
adj.残忍的,不人道的,无人性的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
214 prey | |
n.被掠食者,牺牲者,掠食;v.捕食,掠夺,折磨 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
215 levy | |
n.征收税或其他款项,征收额 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
216 condemned | |
adj. 被责难的, 被宣告有罪的 动词condemn的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
217 stratagem | |
n.诡计,计谋 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
218 pretence | |
n.假装,作假;借口,口实;虚伪;虚饰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
219 stringent | |
adj.严厉的;令人信服的;银根紧的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
220 amity | |
n.友好关系 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
221 astonishment | |
n.惊奇,惊异 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
222 predecessor | |
n.前辈,前任 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
223 killing | |
n.巨额利润;突然赚大钱,发大财 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
224 breach | |
n.违反,不履行;破裂;vt.冲破,攻破 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
225 lapse | |
n.过失,流逝,失效,抛弃信仰,间隔;vi.堕落,停止,失效,流逝;vt.使失效 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
226 sanctuary | |
n.圣所,圣堂,寺庙;禁猎区,保护区 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
227 benevolent | |
adj.仁慈的,乐善好施的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
228 curbed | |
v.限制,克制,抑制( curb的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
229 tolerance | |
n.宽容;容忍,忍受;耐药力;公差 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
230 laity | |
n.俗人;门外汉 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
231 proceeding | |
n.行动,进行,(pl.)会议录,学报 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
232 taint | |
n.污点;感染;腐坏;v.使感染;污染 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
233 surmise | |
v./n.猜想,推测 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
234 blasphemous | |
adj.亵渎神明的,不敬神的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
235 consecration | |
n.供献,奉献,献祭仪式 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
236 grandeur | |
n.伟大,崇高,宏伟,庄严,豪华 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
237 devouring | |
吞没( devour的现在分词 ); 耗尽; 津津有味地看; 狼吞虎咽地吃光 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
238 engraved | |
v.在(硬物)上雕刻(字,画等)( engrave的过去式和过去分词 );将某事物深深印在(记忆或头脑中) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
239 valid | |
adj.有确实根据的;有效的;正当的,合法的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
240 repeal | |
n.废止,撤消;v.废止,撤消 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
241 repealed | |
撤销,废除( repeal的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
242 immutable | |
adj.不可改变的,永恒的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
243 jot | |
n.少量;vi.草草记下;vt.匆匆写下 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
244 repenting | |
对(自己的所为)感到懊悔或忏悔( repent的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
245 overt | |
adj.公开的,明显的,公然的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
246 coveting | |
v.贪求,觊觎( covet的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
247 covet | |
vt.垂涎;贪图(尤指属于他人的东西) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
248 enumeration | |
n.计数,列举;细目;详表;点查 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
249 amazement | |
n.惊奇,惊讶 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
250 inevitably | |
adv.不可避免地;必然发生地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
251 incapable | |
adj.无能力的,不能做某事的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
252 cavils | |
v.挑剔,吹毛求疵( cavil的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
253 cavil | |
v.挑毛病,吹毛求疵 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
254 teem | |
vi.(with)充满,多产 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
255 engendered | |
v.产生(某形势或状况),造成,引起( engender的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
256 mire | |
n.泥沼,泥泞;v.使...陷于泥泞,使...陷入困境 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
257 expend | |
vt.花费,消费,消耗 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
258 plausibility | |
n. 似有道理, 能言善辩 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
259 fixed | |
adj.固定的,不变的,准备好的;(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
260 adversaries | |
n.对手,敌手( adversary的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
261 noted | |
adj.著名的,知名的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
262 affected | |
adj.不自然的,假装的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
263 leniency | |
n.宽大(不严厉) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
264 justifying | |
证明…有理( justify的现在分词 ); 为…辩护; 对…作出解释; 为…辩解(或辩护) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
265 shameful | |
adj.可耻的,不道德的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
266 positively | |
adv.明确地,断然,坚决地;实在,确实 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
267 exterminate | |
v.扑灭,消灭,根绝 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
268 contagion | |
n.(通过接触的疾病)传染;蔓延 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
269 assailed | |
v.攻击( assail的过去式和过去分词 );困扰;质问;毅然应对 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
270 fanatics | |
狂热者,入迷者( fanatic的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
271 commonwealth | |
n.共和国,联邦,共同体 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
272 slaughter | |
n.屠杀,屠宰;vt.屠杀,宰杀 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
273 blotting | |
吸墨水纸 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
274 authorizing | |
授权,批准,委托( authorize的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
275 sophistry | |
n.诡辩 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
276 runaway | |
n.逃走的人,逃亡,亡命者;adj.逃亡的,逃走的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
277 thereby | |
adv.因此,从而 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
278 restitution | |
n.赔偿;恢复原状 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
279 inordinately | |
adv.无度地,非常地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
280 mosaic | |
n./adj.镶嵌细工的,镶嵌工艺品的,嵌花式的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
281 reclamation | |
n.开垦;改造;(废料等的)回收 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
282 enact | |
vt.制定(法律);上演,扮演 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
283 petulance | |
n.发脾气,生气,易怒,暴躁,性急 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
284 twilight | |
n.暮光,黄昏;暮年,晚期,衰落时期 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
285 professing | |
声称( profess的现在分词 ); 宣称; 公开表明; 信奉 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
286 amending | |
改良,修改,修订( amend的现在分词 ); 改良,修改,修订( amend的第三人称单数 )( amends的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
287 Amended | |
adj. 修正的 动词amend的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
288 apostasy | |
n.背教,脱党 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
289 heresy | |
n.异端邪说;异教 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
290 conceit | |
n.自负,自高自大 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
291 clique | |
n.朋党派系,小集团 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
292 lamentable | |
adj.令人惋惜的,悔恨的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
293 skeptical | |
adj.怀疑的,多疑的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
294 repudiate | |
v.拒绝,拒付,拒绝履行 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
295 meridian | |
adj.子午线的;全盛期的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
296 psalms | |
n.赞美诗( psalm的名词复数 );圣诗;圣歌;(中的) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
297 expounded | |
论述,详细讲解( expound的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
298 expound | |
v.详述;解释;阐述 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
299 connivance | |
n.纵容;默许 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
300 celebrated | |
adj.有名的,声誉卓著的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
301 conjugal | |
adj.婚姻的,婚姻性的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
302 premise | |
n.前提;v.提论,预述 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
303 premises | |
n.建筑物,房屋 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
304 invalid | |
n.病人,伤残人;adj.有病的,伤残的;无效的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
305 overthrown | |
adj. 打翻的,推倒的,倾覆的 动词overthrow的过去分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
306 devout | |
adj.虔诚的,虔敬的,衷心的 (n.devoutness) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
307 rendering | |
n.表现,描写 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
308 erring | |
做错事的,错误的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
309 enactment | |
n.演出,担任…角色;制订,通过 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
310 candidly | |
adv.坦率地,直率而诚恳地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
311 legislative | |
n.立法机构,立法权;adj.立法的,有立法权的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
312 enactments | |
n.演出( enactment的名词复数 );展现;规定;通过 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
313 concurs | |
同意(concur的第三人称单数形式) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
314 testimony | |
n.证词;见证,证明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
315 monstrous | |
adj.巨大的;恐怖的;可耻的,丢脸的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
316 perversion | |
n.曲解;堕落;反常 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
317 licentious | |
adj.放纵的,淫乱的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
318 whatsoever | |
adv.(用于否定句中以加强语气)任何;pron.无论什么 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
319 incur | |
vt.招致,蒙受,遭遇 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
320 interpretation | |
n.解释,说明,描述;艺术处理 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
321 perversions | |
n.歪曲( perversion的名词复数 );变坏;变态心理 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
322 repeals | |
撤销,废除( repeal的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
323 enacted | |
制定(法律),通过(法案)( enact的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
324 seclusion | |
n.隐遁,隔离 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
325 unity | |
n.团结,联合,统一;和睦,协调 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
326 nuptials | |
n.婚礼;婚礼( nuptial的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
327 indignity | |
n.侮辱,伤害尊严,轻蔑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
328 anomalous | |
adj.反常的;不规则的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
329 annulment | |
n.废除,取消,(法院对婚姻等)判决无效 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
330 eligible | |
adj.有条件被选中的;(尤指婚姻等)合适(意)的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
331 contemplates | |
深思,细想,仔细考虑( contemplate的第三人称单数 ); 注视,凝视; 考虑接受(发生某事的可能性); 深思熟虑,沉思,苦思冥想 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
332 repugnance | |
n.嫌恶 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
333 consensus | |
n.(意见等的)一致,一致同意,共识 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
334 perverted | |
adj.不正当的v.滥用( pervert的过去式和过去分词 );腐蚀;败坏;使堕落 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
335 adverse | |
adj.不利的;有害的;敌对的,不友好的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
336 virtues | |
美德( virtue的名词复数 ); 德行; 优点; 长处 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
337 feuds | |
n.长期不和,世仇( feud的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
338 preceptive | |
adj.教训性的,好教训人的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
339 enjoining | |
v.命令( enjoin的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
340 vex | |
vt.使烦恼,使苦恼 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
341 undoubtedly | |
adv.确实地,无疑地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
342 jealousy | |
n.妒忌,嫉妒,猜忌 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
343 outrages | |
引起…的义愤,激怒( outrage的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
344 worthy | |
adj.(of)值得的,配得上的;有价值的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
345 irreconcilable | |
adj.(指人)难和解的,势不两立的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
346 rebuking | |
责难或指责( rebuke的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
347 corruptions | |
n.堕落( corruption的名词复数 );腐化;腐败;贿赂 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
348 residue | |
n.残余,剩余,残渣 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
349 countenance | |
n.脸色,面容;面部表情;vt.支持,赞同 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
350 alas | |
int.唉(表示悲伤、忧愁、恐惧等) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
351 extinction | |
n.熄灭,消亡,消灭,灭绝,绝种 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
352 hardy | |
adj.勇敢的,果断的,吃苦的;耐寒的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
353 dealing | |
n.经商方法,待人态度 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
354 favourable | |
adj.赞成的,称赞的,有利的,良好的,顺利的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
355 eldest | |
adj.最年长的,最年老的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
356 marital | |
adj.婚姻的,夫妻的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
357 devoted | |
adj.忠诚的,忠实的,热心的,献身于...的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
358 antiquities | |
n.古老( antiquity的名词复数 );古迹;古人们;古代的风俗习惯 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
359 emoluments | |
n.报酬,薪水( emolument的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
360 withholding | |
扣缴税款 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
361 condemning | |
v.(通常因道义上的原因而)谴责( condemn的现在分词 );宣判;宣布…不能使用;迫使…陷于不幸的境地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
362 wrested | |
(用力)拧( wrest的过去式和过去分词 ); 费力取得; (从…)攫取; ( 从… ) 强行取去… | |
参考例句: |
|
|
363 swelled | |
增强( swell的过去式和过去分词 ); 肿胀; (使)凸出; 充满(激情) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
364 yoke | |
n.轭;支配;v.给...上轭,连接,使成配偶 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
365 woe | |
n.悲哀,苦痛,不幸,困难;int.用来表达悲伤或惊慌 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
366 chambers | |
n.房间( chamber的名词复数 );(议会的)议院;卧室;会议厅 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
367 pelt | |
v.投掷,剥皮,抨击,开火 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
368 sarcasm | |
n.讥讽,讽刺,嘲弄,反话 (adj.sarcastic) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
369 accusations | |
n.指责( accusation的名词复数 );指控;控告;(被告发、控告的)罪名 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
370 Forsaken | |
adj. 被遗忘的, 被抛弃的 动词forsake的过去分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
371 guardians | |
监护人( guardian的名词复数 ); 保护者,维护者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
372 vilify | |
v.诽谤,中伤 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
373 rebukes | |
责难或指责( rebuke的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
374 applied | |
adj.应用的;v.应用,适用 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
375 distress | |
n.苦恼,痛苦,不舒适;不幸;vt.使悲痛 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
376 emancipation | |
n.(从束缚、支配下)解放 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
377 zealous | |
adj.狂热的,热心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
378 entreating | |
恳求,乞求( entreat的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
379 concealment | |
n.隐藏, 掩盖,隐瞒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
380 meshes | |
网孔( mesh的名词复数 ); 网状物; 陷阱; 困境 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
381 civic | |
adj.城市的,都市的,市民的,公民的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
382 oblation | |
n.圣餐式;祭品 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
383 reverences | |
n.尊敬,崇敬( reverence的名词复数 );敬礼 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
384 conclusive | |
adj.最后的,结论的;确凿的,消除怀疑的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
欢迎访问英文小说网 |