A bishop1 once twitted a curate with preaching indifferent orthodoxy. "Well," answered the latter, "I don't see how you can expect me to be as orthodox as yourself. I believe at the rate of a hundred a year, and you at the rate of ten thousand." In the spirit of this anecdote2 we should expect an archbishop to be as orthodox as the frailty3 of human nature will allow. A man who faithfully believes at the rate of fifteen thousand a year should be able to swallow most things and stick at very little. And there can be no doubt that the canny4 Scotchman who has climbed or wriggled5 up to the Archbishopric of Canterbury is prepared to go any lengths his salary may require. We suspect that he regards the doctrines6 of the Church very much as did that irreverent youth mentioned by Sidney Smith, who, on being asked to sign the Thirty-nine Articles, replied "Oh yes, forty if you like." The clean linen7 of his theology is immaculately pure. Never has he fallen under a suspicion of entertaining dangerous or questionable8 opinions, and he has in a remarkable9 degree that faculty10 praised by Saint Paul of being all things to all men, or at least as many men as make a lumping majority. What else could be expected from a Scotchman who has mounted to the spiritual Primacy of England?
His Grace has recently been visiting the clergy11 and churchwardens of his diocese and delivering what are called Charges to them. The third of these was on the momentous13 subject of Modern Infidelity, which seems to have greatly exercised his mind. This horrid14 influence is found to be very prevalent, much to the disconcertion of his Grace, who felt constrained15 to begin his Charge with expressions of despondency, and only recovered his spirits towards the end, where he confidently relies on the gracious promise of Christ never to forsake16 his darling church. Some of the admissions he makes are worth recording—
"I can," he says, "have no doubt that the aspect of Christian17 society in the present day is somewhat troubled, that the Church of Christ and the faith of Christ are passing through a great trial in all regions of the civilised world, and not least among ourselves. There are dark clouds on the horizon already breaking, which may speedily burst into a violent storm.... It is well to note in history how these two evils—superstition and infidelity—act and react in strengthening each other. Still, I cannot doubt that the most [? more] formidable of the two for us at present is infidelity.... It is indeed a frightful18 thought that numbers of our intelligent mechanics seem to be alienated19 from all religious ordinances20, that our Secularist21 halls are well filled, that there is an active propagandism at work for shaking belief in all creeds23."
These facts are of course patent, but it is something to get an Archbishop to acknowledge them, His Grace also finds "from above, in the regions of literature and art, efforts to degrade mankind by denying our high original:" the high original being, we presume, a certain simple pair called Adam and Eve, who damned themselves and nearly the whole of their posterity24 by eating an apple six thousand years ago. The degradation25 of a denial of this theory is hardly perceptible to untheological eyes. Most candid26 minds would prefer to believe in Darwin rather than in Moses even if the latter had, which he has not, a single leg to stand on. For the theory of our Simian27 origin at least involves progression in the past and perhaps salvation28 in the future of our race, while the "high original" theory involved our retrogression and perdition. His grace wonders how these persons can "confine their hopes and aspirations29 to a life which is so irresistibly30 hastening to its speedy conclusion." But surely he is aware that they do so for the very simple reason that they know nothing of any other life to hope about or aspire31 to. One bird in the hand is worth twenty in the bush when the bush itself remains32 obstinately33 invisible, and if properly cooked is worth all the dishes in the world filled only with expectations. His grace likewise refers to the unequal distribution of worldly goods, to the poverty and misery34 which exist "notwithstanding all attempts to regenerate35 society by specious36 schemes of socialistic reorganisation." It is, of course, very natural that an archbishop in the enjoyment37 of a vast income should stigmatise these "specious schemes" for distributing more equitably38 the good things of this world; but the words "blessed be ye poor" go ill to the tune39 of fifteen thousand a year, and there is a grim irony40 in the fact that palaces are tenanted by men who profess41 to represent and preach the gospel of him who had not where to lay his head. Modern Christianity has been called a civilised heathenism; with no less justice it might be called an organised hypocrisy42.
After a dolorous43 complaint as to the magazines "lying everywhere for the use of our sons and daughters," in which the doctrines both of natural and of revealed religion are assailed44, the Archbishop proceeds to deal with the first great form of infidelity, namely Agnosticism. With a feeble attempt at wit he remarks that the name itself implies a confession45 of ignorance, which he marvels46 to find unaccompanied by "the logical result of a philosophical47 humility48." A fair account of the Agnostic position is then given, after which it is severely49 observed that "the better feelings of man contradict these sophisms." In proof of this, his Grace cites the fact that in Paris, the "stronghold of Atheistical51 philosophy," the number of burials that take place without religious rites52 is "a scarcely appreciable53 percentage." We suspect the accuracy of this statement, but having no statistics on the subject by us, we are not prepared to dispute it. We will assume its truth; but the important question then arises—What kind of persons are those who dispense54 with the rites of religion? Notoriously they are men of the highest intellect and character, whose quality far outweighs55 the quantity of the other side. They are the leaders of action and thought, and what they think and do to-day will be thought and done by the masses to-morrow. When a man like Gambetta, occupying such a high position and wielding56 such immense influence, invariably declines to enter a church, whether he attends the marriage or the funeral of his friends, we are entitled to say that his example on our side is infinitely57 more important than the practice of millions who are creatures of habit and for the most part blind followers58 of tradition. The Archbishop's argument tells against his own position, and the fact he cites, when closely examined, proves more for our side than he thought it proved for his own.
Atheism59 is disrelished by his Grace even more than Agnosticism. His favorite epithet60 for it is "dogmatic." "Surely," he cries, "the boasted enlightenment of this century will never tolerate the gross ignorance and arrogant61 self-conceit which presumes to dogmatise as to things confessedly beyond its ken62." Quite so; but that is what the theologians are perpetually doing. To use Matthew Arnold's happy expression, they talk familiarly about God as though he were a man living in the next street. The Atheist50 and the Agnostic confess their inability to fathom63 the universe and profess doubts as to the ability of others. Yet they are called dogmatic, arrogant, and self-conceited. On the other hand, the theologians claim the power of seeing through nature up to nature's God. Yet they, forsooth, must be accounted modest, humble64, and retiring.
"O wad some pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!"
These abominable65 Atheists are by no means scarce, for, says his Grace, "practical Atheists we have everywhere, if Atheism be the denial of God." Just so; that is precisely66 what we "infidels" have been saying for years. Christianity is utterly67 alien to the life of modern society, and in flagrant contradiction to the spirit of our secular22 progress. It stands outside all the institutions of our material civilisation68. Its churches still echo the old strains of music and the old dogmatic tones from the pulpit, but the worshippers themselves feel the anomaly of its doctrines and rites when they return to their secular avocations69. The Sunday does nothing but break the continuity of their lives, steeping them in sentiments and ideas which have no relation to their experience during the rest of the week. The profession of Christendom is one thing, its practice is another. God is simply acknowledged with the lips on Sunday, and on every other day profoundly disregarded in all the pursuits of life whether of business or of pleasure. Even in our national legislature, although the practice of prayer is still retained, any man would be sneered70 at as a fool who made the least appeal to the sanctions of theology. An allusion71 to the Sermon on the Mount would provoke a smile, and a citation72 of one of the Thirty-nine Articles be instantly ruled as irrelevant73. Nothing from the top to the bottom of our political and social life is done with any reference to those theological doctrines which the nation professes74 to believe, and to the maintenance of which it devotes annually75 so many millions of its wealth.
In order to pose any member of the two great divisions of "infidelity," the Archbishop advises his clergy to ask the following rather comical questions:—
"Do you believe nothing which is not capable of being tested by the ordinary rules which govern experience in things natural? How then do you know that you yourself exist? How do you know that the perceptions of your senses are not mere76 delusions77, and that there is anything outside you answering to what your mind conceives? Have you a mind? and if you have not, what is it that enables you to think and reason, and fear, and hope? Are these conditions of your being the mere results of your material organism, like the headache which springs from indigestion, or the high spirits engendered78 by too much wine? Are you something better than a vegetable highly cultivated, or than your brothers of the lower animals? and, if so, what is it that differentiates79 your superiority? Why do things outside you obey your will? Who gave you a will? and, if so, what is it? I think you must allow that intellect is a thing almost divine, if there be anything divine; and I think also you must allow that it is not a thing to be propagated as we propagate well-made and high-bred cattle. Whence came Alexander the Great? Whence Charlemagne? And whence the First Napoleon? Was it through a mere process of spontaneous generation that they sprang up to alter by their genius and overwhelming will the destinies of the world? Whence came Homer, Shakespeare, Bacon? Whence came all the great historians? Whence came Plato and all the bright lights of divine philosophy, of divinity, of poetry? Their influence, after all, you must allow to be quite as wide and enduring as any produced by the masters of those positive material sciences which you worship. Do you think that all these great minds—for they are minds, and their work was not the product of a merely highly organised material frame—were the outcome of some system of material generation, which your so-called science can subject to rule, and teach men how to produce by growth, as they grow vegetables?"
The Archbishop is not a very skilful80 physician. His prescription81 shows that he has not diagnosed the disease. These strange questions might strike the infidel "all of a heap," as the expressive82 vernacular83 has it, but although they might dumbfounder him, they would assuredly not convince. If the Archbishop of Canterbury were not so exalted84 a personage we should venture to remark that to ask a man how he knows that he exists betrays a marvellous depth of ignorance or folly85. Ultimate facts of consciousness are not subjects of proof or disproof; they are their own warranty86 and cannot be transcended87. There is, besides, something extraordinary in an archbishop of the church to which Berkeley belonged supposing that extreme idealism follows only the rejection88 of deity89. Whether the senses are after all delusory does not matter to the Atheist a straw; they are real enough to him, they make his world in which he lives and moves, and it is of no practical consequence whether they mirror an outer world or not. What differentiates you from the lower animals? asks his Grace. The answer is simple—a higher development of nervous structure. Who gave you a will? is just as sensible a question as Who gave you a nose? We have every reason to believe that both can be accounted for on natural grounds without introducing a supernatural donor90. The question whether Alexander, Napoleon, Homer, Bacon and Shakespeare came through a process of spontaneous generation is excruciatingly ludicrous. That process could only produce the very lowest form of organism, and not a wonderfully complex being like man who is the product of an incalculable evolution. But the Archbishop did not perhaps intend this; it may be that in his haste to silence the "infidel" he stumbled over his own meaning. Lastly, there is a remarkable na?veté in the aside of the final question—"for they are minds." He should have added "you know," and then the episode would have been delightfully91 complete. The assumption of the whole point at issue in an innocent parenthesis92 is perhaps to be expected from a pulpiteer, but it is not likely that the "infidel" will be caught by such a simple stratagem93. All these questions are so irrelevant and absurd that we doubt whether his Grace would have the courage to put one of them to any sceptic across a table, or indeed from any place in the world except the pulpit, which is beyond all risk of attack, and whence a man may ask any number of questions without the least fear of hearing one of them answered.
The invitation given by his grace, to "descend94 to the harder ground of strictest logical argumentation," is very appropriate. Whether the movement be ascending95 or descending96, there is undoubtedly97 a vast distance between logical argumentation and anything he has yet advanced. But even on the "harder" ground the Archbishop treads no more firmly. He demands to know how the original protoplasm became endowed with life, and if that question cannot be answered he calls upon us to admit his theory of divine agency, as though that made the subject more intelligible98. Supernatural hypotheses are but refuges of ignorance. Earl Beaconsfield, in his impish way, once remarked that where knowledge ended religion began, and the Archbishop of Canterbury seems to share that opinion. His Grace also avers99 that "no one has ever yet been able to refute the argument necessitating100 a great First Cause." It is very easy to assert this, but rather difficult to maintain it. One assertion is as good as another, and we shall therefore content ourselves with saying that in our opinion the argument for a great First Cause was (to mention only one name) completely demolished101 by John Stuart Mill, who showed it to be based on a total misconception of the nature of cause and effect, which apply only to ph?nomenal changes and not to the apparently102 unchangeable matter and force of which the universe is composed.
But the overwhelming last argument is that "man has something in him which speaks of God, of something above this fleeting103 world, and rules of right and wrong have their foundation elsewhere than in man's opinion.... that there is an immutable104, eternal distinction between right and wrong—that there is a God who is on the side of right." Again we must complain of unbounded assertion. Every point of this rhetorical flourish is disputed by "infidels" who are not likely to yield to anything short of proof. If God is on the side of right he is singularly incapable105 of maintaining it; for, in this world at least, according to some penetrating106 minds, the devil has hitherto had it pretty much his own way, and good men have had to struggle very hard to make things even as equitable107 as we find them. But after all, says his Grace, the supreme108 defence of the Church against the assaults of infidelity is Christ himself. Weak in argument, the clergy must throw themselves behind his shield and trust in him. Before his brightness "the mists which rise from a gross materialistic109 Atheism evaporate, and are scattered110 like the clouds of night before the dawn." It is useless to oppose reason to such preaching as this. We shall therefore simply retort the Archbishop's epithets111. Gross and materialistic are just the terms to describe a religion which traffics in blood and declares that without the shedding of it there is no remission of sin; whose ascetic112 doctrines malign113 our purest affections and defile114 the sweetest fountains of our spiritual health; whose heaven is nothing but an exaggerated jeweller's shop, and its hell a den12 of torture in which God punishes his children for the consequences of his own ignorance, incapacity or crime.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
bishop
|
|
| n.主教，（国际象棋）象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
anecdote
|
|
| n.轶事，趣闻，短故事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
frailty
|
|
| n.脆弱；意志薄弱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
canny
|
|
| adj.谨慎的，节俭的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
wriggled
|
|
| v.扭动，蠕动，蜿蜒行进( wriggle的过去式和过去分词 )；（使身体某一部位）扭动；耍滑不做，逃避（应做的事等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
doctrines
|
|
| n.教条( doctrine的名词复数 )；教义；学说；（政府政策的）正式声明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
linen
|
|
| n.亚麻布，亚麻线，亚麻制品；adj.亚麻布制的，亚麻的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
questionable
|
|
| adj.可疑的，有问题的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
faculty
|
|
| n.才能；学院，系；(学院或系的)全体教学人员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
clergy
|
|
| n.[总称]牧师，神职人员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
den
|
|
| n.兽穴；秘密地方；安静的小房间，私室 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
momentous
|
|
| adj.重要的，重大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
horrid
|
|
| adj.可怕的；令人惊恐的；恐怖的；极讨厌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
constrained
|
|
| adj.束缚的,节制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
forsake
|
|
| vt.遗弃，抛弃；舍弃，放弃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
frightful
|
|
| adj.可怕的；讨厌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
alienated
|
|
| adj.感到孤独的，不合群的v.使疏远( alienate的过去式和过去分词 )；使不友好；转让；让渡（财产等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
ordinances
|
|
| n.条例，法令( ordinance的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
secularist
|
|
| n.现世主义者，世俗主义者；宗教与教育分离论者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
22
secular
|
|
| n.牧师，凡人；adj.世俗的，现世的，不朽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
creeds
|
|
| （尤指宗教）信条，教条( creed的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
posterity
|
|
| n.后裔，子孙，后代 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
degradation
|
|
| n.降级；低落；退化；陵削；降解；衰变 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
candid
|
|
| adj.公正的，正直的；坦率的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
simian
|
|
| adj.似猿猴的；n.类人猿，猴 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
salvation
|
|
| n.（尤指基督）救世，超度，拯救，解困 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
aspirations
|
|
| 强烈的愿望( aspiration的名词复数 )； 志向； 发送气音； 发 h 音 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
irresistibly
|
|
| adv.无法抵抗地，不能自持地；极为诱惑人地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
aspire
|
|
| vi.(to，after)渴望，追求，有志于 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
obstinately
|
|
| ad.固执地，顽固地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
misery
|
|
| n.痛苦，苦恼，苦难；悲惨的境遇，贫苦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
regenerate
|
|
| vt.使恢复，使新生；vi.恢复，再生；adj.恢复的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
specious
|
|
| adj.似是而非的；adv.似是而非地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
enjoyment
|
|
| n.乐趣；享有；享用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
equitably
|
|
| 公平地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
tune
|
|
| n.调子；和谐，协调；v.调音，调节，调整 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
irony
|
|
| n.反语，冷嘲；具有讽刺意味的事，嘲弄 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
profess
|
|
| v.声称，冒称，以...为业，正式接受入教，表明信仰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
hypocrisy
|
|
| n.伪善，虚伪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
dolorous
|
|
| adj.悲伤的；忧愁的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
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： |
|
|
|
|
45
confession
|
|
| n.自白，供认，承认 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
marvels
|
|
| n.奇迹( marvel的名词复数 )；令人惊奇的事物（或事例）；不平凡的成果；成就v.惊奇，对…感到惊奇( marvel的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
philosophical
|
|
| adj.哲学家的，哲学上的，达观的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
humility
|
|
| n.谦逊，谦恭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
severely
|
|
| adv.严格地；严厉地；非常恶劣地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
atheist
|
|
| n.无神论者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
atheistical
|
|
| adj.无神论（者）的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
52
rites
|
|
| 仪式，典礼( rite的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
appreciable
|
|
| adj.明显的，可见的，可估量的，可觉察的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
dispense
|
|
| vt.分配，分发；配(药)，发(药)；实施 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
outweighs
|
|
| v.在重量上超过( outweigh的第三人称单数 )；在重要性或价值方面超过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
wielding
|
|
| 手持着使用（武器、工具等）( wield的现在分词 )； 具有； 运用（权力）； 施加（影响） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
infinitely
|
|
| adv.无限地，无穷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
followers
|
|
| 追随者( follower的名词复数 )； 用户； 契据的附面； 从动件 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
atheism
|
|
| n.无神论，不信神 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
epithet
|
|
| n.（用于褒贬人物等的）表述形容词，修饰语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
arrogant
|
|
| adj.傲慢的，自大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
ken
|
|
| n.视野，知识领域 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
fathom
|
|
| v.领悟，彻底了解 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
humble
|
|
| adj.谦卑的，恭顺的；地位低下的；v.降低，贬低 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
abominable
|
|
| adj.可厌的，令人憎恶的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
utterly
|
|
| adv.完全地，绝对地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
civilisation
|
|
| n.文明，文化，开化，教化 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
avocations
|
|
| n.业余爱好，嗜好( avocation的名词复数 )；职业 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
sneered
|
|
| 讥笑，冷笑( sneer的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
allusion
|
|
| n.暗示，间接提示 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
citation
|
|
| n.引用，引证，引用文；传票 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
irrelevant
|
|
| adj.不恰当的，无关系的，不相干的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
professes
|
|
| 声称( profess的第三人称单数 )； 宣称； 公开表明； 信奉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
annually
|
|
| adv.一年一次，每年 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
delusions
|
|
| n.欺骗( delusion的名词复数 )；谬见；错觉；妄想 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
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： |
|
|
|
|
79
differentiates
|
|
| 区分，区别，辨别( differentiate的第三人称单数 )； 区别对待； 表明…间的差别，构成…间差别的特征 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
skilful
|
|
| (=skillful)adj.灵巧的，熟练的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
prescription
|
|
| n.处方，开药；指示，规定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
expressive
|
|
| adj.表现的，表达…的，富于表情的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
vernacular
|
|
| adj.地方的，用地方语写成的；n.白话；行话；本国语；动植物的俗名 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
exalted
|
|
| adj.(地位等)高的，崇高的；尊贵的，高尚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
folly
|
|
| n.愚笨，愚蠢，蠢事，蠢行，傻话 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
warranty
|
|
| n.担保书，证书，保单 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
transcended
|
|
| 超出或超越（经验、信念、描写能力等）的范围( transcend的过去式和过去分词 )； 优于或胜过… | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
rejection
|
|
| n.拒绝，被拒，抛弃，被弃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
deity
|
|
| n.神，神性；被奉若神明的人(或物) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
donor
|
|
| n.捐献者；赠送人；(组织、器官等的)供体 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
delightfully
|
|
| 大喜，欣然 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
parenthesis
|
|
| n.圆括号，插入语，插曲，间歇，停歇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
stratagem
|
|
| n.诡计，计谋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
descend
|
|
| vt./vi.传下来，下来，下降 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
ascending
|
|
| adj.上升的，向上的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
descending
|
|
| n. 下行 adj. 下降的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
undoubtedly
|
|
| adv.确实地，无疑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
intelligible
|
|
| adj.可理解的，明白易懂的，清楚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
avers
|
|
| v.断言( aver的第三人称单数 )；证实；证明…属实；作为事实提出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
necessitating
|
|
| 使…成为必要，需要( necessitate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
demolished
|
|
| v.摧毁( demolish的过去式和过去分词 )；推翻；拆毁（尤指大建筑物）；吃光 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
fleeting
|
|
| adj.短暂的，飞逝的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
immutable
|
|
| adj.不可改变的，永恒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
incapable
|
|
| adj.无能力的，不能做某事的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
penetrating
|
|
| adj.（声音）响亮的，尖锐的adj.（气味）刺激的adj.（思想）敏锐的，有洞察力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
equitable
|
|
| adj.公平的；公正的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
materialistic
|
|
| a.唯物主义的，物质享乐主义的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
scattered
|
|
| adj.分散的，稀疏的；散步的；疏疏落落的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
epithets
|
|
| n.（表示性质、特征等的）词语( epithet的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
ascetic
|
|
| adj.禁欲的；严肃的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
malign
|
|
| adj.有害的；恶性的；恶意的；v.诽谤，诬蔑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
defile
|
|
| v.弄污，弄脏；n.(山间)小道 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |