The Judicial1 Committee of the Privy2 Council has delivered judgment3 in the case of Jenkins v. Cook. Many of the highest personages in the realm, including the Archbishop of Canterbury and the great law-lords, were present to give weight and solemnity to the decision, which was read by the Lord Chancellor4. It was reported at full length in the Times of the following day, Feb. 17, 1876, the length being two columns of small print.
I must try to indicate briefly5 the main facts of the case, before hazarding any comments on it. Mr. Jenkins, of Christ Church, Clifton, brought an action against his vicar, the Kev. Flavel S. Cook, for refusing him the Sacrament of the Holy Communion. Mr. Cook justified6 the refusal on the ground that Mr. Jenkins did not believe in the Devil, all passages relating to the Devil and evil spirits having been excluded from a bulky volume published by Mr. Jenkins, entitled “Selections from the Old and New Testaments8.” By the evidence of Mrs. Jenkins, who attempted an amicable9 arrangement, it appears that Mr. Cook said to her: “Let Mr. Jenkins write me a calm letter, and say he believes in the Devil, and I will give him the Sacrament.” Whereupon Mr. Jenkins wrote on July 20, 1874: “With regard to my book, ‘Selections from the Old and New Testaments,’ the parts I have omitted, and which has enabled me [meaning, doubtless, and the omission10 of which has enabled me] to use the book morning and evening in my family are, in their present generally received sense, quite incompatible11 with region or decency12 (in my opinion). How such ideas have become connected with a book containing everything that is necessary for a man to know, I really cannot say; I can only sincerely regret it.” Mr. Cook replied in effect: “Then you cannot be received at the Lord’s table in my church.” Mr. Jenkins, a regular communicant, and admittedly a man of exemplary and devout13 life, answered: “Thinking as you do, I do not see what other course you could consistently have taken. I shall, nevertheless, come to the Lord’s table as usual at ‘your’ church, which is also mine.” Accordingly he presented himself, and was repelled14, whereupon he brought an action against Mr. Cook.
The case was first tried in the Court of Arches, and the dean dismissed the suit and condemned15 Mr. Jenkins in costs, saying, “I am of opinion that the avowed16 and persistent17 denial of the existence and personality of the Devil did, according to the law of the Church, as expressed in her canons and rubrics, constitute the promoter [Mr. Jenkins] ‘an evil liver,’ and ‘a depraver of the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments,’ in such sense as to warrant the defendant18 in refusing to administer the Holy Communion to him until he disavowed or withdrew his avowal19 of the heretical opinion, and that the same consideration applies to the absolute denial by the promoter of the doctrine20 of the eternity21 of punishment, and, of course, still more to the denial of all punishment for sin in a future state, which is the legitimate22 consequence of his deliberate exclusion23 of the passages of scripture24 referring to such punishment.”
So far, so well; the Church of England was assured of the Devil and the eternal punishment it has always held so dear. But Mr. Jenkins appealed to the highest court, and this has reversed the decision of the lower, admonished25 Mr. Cook for his conduct in the past, monished him to refrain from the like offence in future, and condemned him in the costs of both suits. Do you think, then, that the Church of England is authoritatively26 deprived of her dear Devil and her beloved eternal punishment? Not at all; the really important problem is evaded27 with consummate28 lawyerlike wariness29; the points in dispute are most shiftily shifted like slides of a magic lantern; we have a new decision essentially30 unrelated to that which it cancels; we have a judgment which concerns not the Devil—except that he would chuckle31 over the too clever unwisdom which fancies it can extinguish “burning questions” with legal wigs32.
Their most learned lordships in the first place observe that the learned judge of the Court of Arches appears to have considered that the canon and the rubric severally warrant the repulsion from the Lord’s table of “an evil liver,” and “a depraver of the Book of Common Prayer,” whereas the terms are “an open and notorious evil liver,” and “common and notorious depravers.” This is a most pregnant distinction, teaching us that an evil liver and a depraver of the said book, as long as he is not notoriously such, is fully33 entitled to the Holy Communion, fully entitled to the privilege of “eating and drinking damnation to himself?” a privilege from which the notorious evil liver and depraver is righteously debarred.
Now, their most learned lordships find that there is absolutely no evidence that the appellant was an evil liver, much less an open and notorious evil liver. The Question follows, Was he a common and notorious depraver of the Book of Common Prayer? It was contended that the Selections, coupled with the letter of July 20, proved him to be this. But the letter was not written spontaneously. He was invited by the respondent, Mr. Cook, to write it. It was a friendly and private, as well as a solicited34, communication. Therefore, whatever be the construction of the letter, and even if there be in it a depravation of the Book of Common Prayer, still it would be impossible to hold that the writing of such a letter in such circumstances could make the appellant “a common and notorious depraver.” Whence it is clear that a man may deprave the Book of Common Prayer as much as he pleases in private conversation and letters, yet retain the precious privilege of “eating and drinking damnation to himself” in the Holy Communion; he can only forfeit35 this by common and notorious depravation of that blessed book—for instance, by a depravation repeatedly published in a newspaper, or persistently36 proclaimed by the town-crier.
So far the law seems most clear, and the judgment quite incontestible. But leaving the strait limits of the law, and looking at the facts in evidence, there is one part of the judgment which to the common lay mind is simply astonishing. Their most learned lordships “desire to state in the most emphatic37 manner that there is not before them any evidence that the appellant entertains the doctrines38 attributed to him by the Dean of Arches;” wherefore their most learned and subtle lordships “do not mean to decide that those doctrines are otherwise than inconsistent with the formularies of the Church of England.” Nor, of course, do they mean to decide that those doctrines are inconsistent with, those formularies. No, “This is not the subject for their lordships’ present consideration.” Indeed, “If they were [had been] called upon to decide that [whether] those opinions, or any of them, could be entertained or expressed by a member of the Church, whether layman39 or clergyman, consistently with the law and with his remaining in communion with the Church, they would have looked upon this case with much greater anxiety than they now feel in its decision.”
Mr. Jenkins compiles and publishes a book of “Selections from the Bible,” carefully excluding all passages relating to the Devil and evil spirits. The book is bulky; and, in fact, though this is not expressly stated, seems to contain pretty well all the Bible except such passages. He further exhibits in the case a book of selections from the liturgy41 of the Church of England, apparently42 compiled on the same principle of exclusion.. Mr. Cook sends through Mrs. J. a message: “Let Mr. J. write me a calm letter, and say he believes in the Devil, and I will give him the Sacrament.” Mr. J. replies, as we have seen, that the parts he has omitted are, in his opinion, quite incompatible with religion or decency, in their generally received sense; such generally received sense being evidently (to all of us save their most learned and subtle lordships) that in which the Church of England receives them. Mr. C. replies, “Then I must refuse you the Communion.” Mr. J. answers, “Thinking as you do, I do not see what other course you could con-. sistently have taken;” and resolves to test the question of legality. With these facts staring them in the face, their most learned and most subtle lordships can, with the utmost solemnity, and in the most emphatic manner, declare that there is not any evidence before them that Mr. Jenkins does not believe in the Devil in the common Church of England sense! What the eyes of laymen43, however purblind44, cannot help seeing clearly, their far-sighted lordships, putting on legal spectacles, dim with the dust of many ages, manage not to discern at all.
The question cannot be left thus undecided. As matters stand, the poor Church does not know whether, legally, it has a Devil or not. Its Devil, its dear and precious old Devil, is in a state of suspended animation45, neither dead nor alive; a most inefficient46 and burdensome Devil. He must either be restored to full health and vigor47, or buried away decently for ever; decently and solemnly, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in the presence of all their lordships of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, reading the appropriate Church service over his grave. That would be touching48 and impressive!—“Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty49 God (with the sanction and authority of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council) of his great mercy to take unto himself the soul of our dear brother here departed, we therefore commit his body to the ground; earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust; in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ.” At present it appears that every clergyman and layman in the Church has the legal right to sing as a solo in private, especially if solicited, Beranger’s refrain, “The Devil is dead! The Devil is dead!” while it is doubtful whether he is at liberty to chant it publicly and in chorus—a state of things anomalous50 beyond even the normal anomalism of all things in this our happy England. It is urgent that some one, lay or cleric, should compel the decision which the suit of Mr. Jenkins has failed to obtain.
In considering the question whether disbelief in the Devil would “deprave” the Prayer Book, we must refer to this book itself. It contains three creeds51—the Apostles’, the Nicene, and that called of Athanasius. Of these the Nicene (the creed52 in the Communion Service, by the way) mentions neither the Devil nor Hell; the Apostles’ and the so-called Athanasian mention hell but not the Devil. In No. III. of the Thirty-nine Articles hell is solidly established, but again there is no mention of the Devil. It may be argued that hell implies the Devil, as a fox-hole implies a fox; but his existence is not authoritatively averred53. Strangely enough, the only personage who, according to the creeds and articles, has certainly been in hell, is Jesus Christ himself: “He descended54 into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended55 into heaven.” What took him to hell? The Prayer Book does not inform us. But we learn from the Epistle called 1 Peter, chap. iii., 19, 20, and chap. iv., 6: “By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison, which sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is eight souls, were saved by water.... For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.” Whence it appears that the spirits in prison were not the Devil and his angels, but the spirits of those who were drowned in the Flood for disobedience; and it furthermore appears that these spirits were saved by the preaching of Christ; so that in this famous harrying56 of hell, he seems to have left it as empty as the mosstroopers in their forays left farmsteads. It is true that No. VI. of the Articles settles the canon of the Old and New Testaments, and that anyone daring to exclude from belief anything in this canon might be convicted of depraving the Prayer Book. But in that case all the best scholars and divines of the Church are guilty of this dreadful sin; and not only guilty, but openly, commonly and notoriously guilty: and therefore all merit repulsion from the Lord’s table. Let the truly faithful clergy40, those who believe all without question or distinction, do their duty to the Articles of religion of their Church (the Creeds, as I have pointed58 out, are neutral), and they will shut out from their Communion nearly all the intelligent piety59 and learning which lend it whatever dignity it still retains. Granted the canon in its integrity, and the existence of a personal Devil, and the doctrine of eternal punishment cannot be fairly disputed. Without multiplying texts, I may refer to Revelation, chap. xx., as decisive on these points.
From these considerations it follows that if the Church of England is bound by her own articles she will hold fast to the Devil and hell, and deny the privilege of her Communion to any one who depraves the Prayer-Book by common and notorious disbelief in them. And for my own part, I do not see how the Church could get on at all without a Devil and hell, especially in competition with the other Christian60 sects61, which make unlimited62 use of both. The Devil is in fact as essential to the Christian schemes as a leader of the opposition63 to that great political blessing64, government by party. If he were to die, or be deposed65, it would be necessary to elect another to the vacant dignity. You cannot put the leadership in commission as the unfortunate Liberals were taunted66 with doing, in their demoralisation after their disasters of the General Election and Mr. Gladstone’s sudden retirement67. Just as Mr. Disraeli lamented68 the withdrawal69 of Mr. Gladstone, complaining of the embarrassment70 caused to the Government by having no responsible leader opposed to it, so we can imagine dear God lamenting71 the absence of a Devil, and declaring that the Christian scheme could not work well without one. His utter loss would make the government of the world retrograde from an admirably balanced constitutional monarchy72 to a mere73 Oriental absolute despotism. You must choose some one to lead, if only in name and for the time, as the Whigs chose Lord Hartington. But though Lord Hartington is still tolerated by us English, a Lord Hartington of a Devil, be it said with all respect to both his lordship and his Devil-ship, would scarcely be tolerated by either the celestial74 or the infernal benches.
In Beranger’s authentic75 record, already alluded76 to, of “The Death of the Devil”—which, however, relates only to the Church of Rome—we read how, on learning the catastrophe:—
Power and cash-box, adieu! they said;
We have lost our father dear,
The Devil is dead! the Devil is dead!”
But while they they were in this passion of grief and despair, St. Ignatius offered to take the place of the dead Devil; and none could doubt that he with his Jesuits for imps78 would prove a most efficient substitute. Wherefore the Church threw off its sorrow and welcomed his offer with most holy rapture:—
“Noble fellow! cried all the court,
And at once his Order, Rome’s support,
Saw its robe flutter Heaven’s gate.
From the angel’s tears of pity fell:
St. Ignatius inherits Hell.
The Devil is dead! the Devil is dead!”
Thus matters continued well for the Church of Rome, and, in fact, became even better than before. But if the Devil should die in the Church of England, whom has she that could efficiently80 take his place? She has no saints except the disciples81 and apostles of the New Testament7, and these have long since gone to glory. Would Mr. Gladstone undertake the office? or Mr. Beresford Hope, with the Saturday Review for his infernal gazette? or the editor of the Rock? or he of the Church Times? or the man who does religion for the Daily Telegraph? Each of these distinguished82 gentlemen might well eagerly accept the candidature or a post so lofty: but I fear that none of them could be considered equal to its functions. Perhaps Mr. Disraeli has the requisite83 genius, and probably he would be very glad to exchange the Premiership of little England for that of large hell: but unfortunately he has already committed himself to the side of the angels, meaning by angels the humdrum84 Tory angels of heaven—for, as Dr. Johnson said, the Devil was the first Whig. On the whole, the Church of England had better keep loyal to its ancient and venerable Devil, being too impoverished85 in intellect and character to supply a worthy86 successor.
I have ventured to compare the government of the world in the Christian scheme, by a God and a Devil, with our own felicitous87 government by party. There is, however, or rather there appears to be, a striking difference between the two. In our government, when the Prime Minister finds himself decidedly in a minority, he goes out of office, and the Leader of the Opposition goes in; in the Government of the World the Leader of the Opposition seems to have always had an immense majority (and his majority in these days is probably larger than ever before, seeing that sceptics and infidels have multiplied exceedingly), yet the other side is supposed to retain permanent possession of office. I say “supposed,” because the Bible itself suggests that this popular opinion is a mistake, the Devil (if there be a Devil) being entitled by it the prince of this world, which surely implies his accession to power.
Although the Godhead or governing power of the world, according to the Christian scheme, is usually spoken and written of as a trinity, it is, in fact, quarterary or fourfold for Protestants, and quinary or fivefold for Roman Catholics. The former have God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, and God the Devil; the latter supplement these with Goddess the Virgin88 Mary. Both formally acknowledge the first three as collectively and severally almighty, but Protestants implicitly89 acknowledge the fourth, and Roman Catholics the fifth, as more almighty still (these solecisms of dogma cannot be expressed without solecisms of language). With the Roman Catholics I am not concerned here. With regard to the Protestants, and those especially professing90 the Protestantism of the Church of England, I may safely affirm that the Devil is not less essential to their theology than is any person of the Trinity, or, in fact, than are the three persons together. Indeed, the Father and the Holy Ghost have been practically dispensed91 with, leaving Christ and Satan to fight the battle out between themselves.
As this is a gloriously scientific age, nobly enamored of the exact sciences, I will endeavor to expound92 this sublime93 subject of the divinity of the Church of England mathematically, even after the manner of the divine Plato in Book VIII. of “The Republic,” treating of divine and human generation; and in the “Tim?us,” treating of the creation of the universal soul. His demonstrations94, indeed, are so divinely obscure as to confound all the scholiasts; my demonstration95, however, shall be so translucent96 that even the most learned and subtle lords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, with their legal spectacles on, shall not be able to help seeing through it. And whereas the figures, which are shapes, are more intelligible97 to most people than the figures which are numbers, let the exposition be geometrical. We will say, then, that the Church of old conceived the divinity in the form of an equilateral triangle, whereof the base was Christ as the whole system was founded on belief in the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Father and the Holy Ghost were the two sides, leaning each on the other; and the Devil was the apex98, as opposed to, and farthest from, our blessed Savior. But in course of time the theologians (perhaps merely wanting some occupation for their vigorous talents, perhaps deeming it undignified to have two persons of the godhead supporting each other obliquely99 like a couple of tipsy men, perhaps simply in order to make matters square) set to work, and pushed up the two sides, so that each might stand firm and perpendicular100 by itself. This process had two unforeseen results; it expanded the apex, which was a very elastic101 point, so that it became the crowning side of the square, and it so unhinged the sides that after a brief upright existence they lost their balance, and were carried to Limbo102 by the first wind of strange doctrine which blew that way; and the Devil and Christ, or Christ and the Devil (arrange the precedence as you please), were left alone confronting each other. These two are of course equal and parallel, the main distinction between them being that Christ is below, and the Devil above, or, in other words, that the Devil is superior and Christ inferior (the Devil seems entitled to the precedence). Thus matters have continued even to the present time, the divinity showing itself, as we may say, without form and void; and we are free to speculate on the momentous103 questions: Will the crown (which is the Devil) fall into the base (which is Christ)? Will the base float up into the crown? Will the two coalesce104 half way? Will they both, unknit from their sides, be carried away to Limbo by some blast of strange doctrine? One thing is certain, they cannot long remain as they are. Rare Ben Jonson chanted the Trinity, or Equilateral Triangle; rare Walt Whitman has chanted the Square Deific (with Satan for the fourth side); no poet can care to chant the two straight lines which, in the language of Euclid, and in the region of intelligence, cannot enclose a space, but are as a magnified symbol of equal—to nothing.
P. S.—It may be appropriately added that the books of Euclid are really symbolic105 and prophetic expositions of most sublime and sacrosanct106 mysteries, though in these days few persons seem aware of the fact. Thus the very first definition, “A point is position without magnitude,” exactly defines every point of difference between the theologians. So a line, which is as the prolongation of a point, or length without breadth, represents in one sense (for each symbol has manifold meanings) the history of any theological system. An acute angle is, say, Professor Clifford; an obtuse107 angle, Mr. Whalley; a right angle, the present writer: non angeli sed Angli. The first proposition, “To erect108 an equilateral triangle upon a given finite straight line,” indicates the problem solved by Christianity, when it erected109 the Trinity on the basis of the man we call Jesus. This pregnant subject should be worked out in detail through the whole eight books.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
judicial
|
|
| adj.司法的，法庭的，审判的，明断的，公正的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
privy
|
|
| adj.私用的；隐密的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
chancellor
|
|
| n.(英)大臣；法官；(德、奥)总理；大学校长 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
briefly
|
|
| adv.简单地，简短地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
justified
|
|
| a.正当的，有理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
testament
|
|
| n.遗嘱；证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
testaments
|
|
| n.遗嘱( testament的名词复数 )；实际的证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
amicable
|
|
| adj.和平的，友好的；友善的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
omission
|
|
| n.省略，删节；遗漏或省略的事物，冗长 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
incompatible
|
|
| adj.不相容的，不协调的，不相配的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
decency
|
|
| n.体面，得体，合宜，正派，庄重 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
devout
|
|
| adj.虔诚的，虔敬的，衷心的 (n.devoutness) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
repelled
|
|
| v.击退( repel的过去式和过去分词 )；使厌恶；排斥；推开 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
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： |
|
|
|
|
16
avowed
|
|
| adj.公开声明的，承认的v.公开声明，承认( avow的过去式和过去分词) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
persistent
|
|
| adj.坚持不懈的，执意的；持续的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
defendant
|
|
| n.被告；adj.处于被告地位的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
avowal
|
|
| n.公开宣称，坦白承认 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
eternity
|
|
| n.不朽，来世；永恒，无穷 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
legitimate
|
|
| adj.合法的，合理的，合乎逻辑的；v.使合法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
exclusion
|
|
| n.拒绝，排除，排斥，远足，远途旅行 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
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： |
|
|
|
|
25
admonished
|
|
| v.劝告( admonish的过去式和过去分词 )；训诫；（温和地）责备；轻责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
authoritatively
|
|
| 命令式地，有权威地，可信地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
evaded
|
|
| 逃避( evade的过去式和过去分词 )； 避开； 回避； 想不出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
consummate
|
|
| adj.完美的；v.成婚；使完美 [反]baffle | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
wariness
|
|
| n. 注意,小心 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
essentially
|
|
| adv.本质上，实质上，基本上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
chuckle
|
|
| vi.／n.轻声笑，咯咯笑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
wigs
|
|
| n.假发，法官帽( wig的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
solicited
|
|
| v.恳求( solicit的过去式和过去分词 )；（指娼妇）拉客；索求；征求 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
forfeit
|
|
| vt.丧失；n.罚金，罚款，没收物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
persistently
|
|
| ad.坚持地；固执地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
emphatic
|
|
| adj.强调的，着重的；无可置疑的，明显的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
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： |
|
|
|
|
39
layman
|
|
| n.俗人，门外汉，凡人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
clergy
|
|
| n.[总称]牧师，神职人员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
liturgy
|
|
| n.礼拜仪式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
laymen
|
|
| 门外汉，外行人( layman的名词复数 )； 普通教徒（有别于神职人员） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
purblind
|
|
| adj.半盲的；愚笨的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
animation
|
|
| n.活泼，兴奋，卡通片／动画片的制作 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
inefficient
|
|
| adj.效率低的，无效的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
vigor
|
|
| n.活力，精力，元气 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
touching
|
|
| adj.动人的，使人感伤的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
almighty
|
|
| adj.全能的，万能的；很大的，很强的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
anomalous
|
|
| adj.反常的；不规则的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
creeds
|
|
| （尤指宗教）信条，教条( creed的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
creed
|
|
| n.信条；信念，纲领 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
averred
|
|
| v.断言( aver的过去式和过去分词 )；证实；证明…属实；作为事实提出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
descended
|
|
| a.为...后裔的，出身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
ascended
|
|
| v.上升，攀登( ascend的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
harrying
|
|
| v.使苦恼( harry的现在分词 )；不断烦扰；一再袭击；侵扰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
rue
|
|
| n.懊悔，芸香，后悔；v.后悔，悲伤，懊悔 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
pointed
|
|
| adj.尖的，直截了当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
piety
|
|
| n.虔诚，虔敬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
sects
|
|
| n.宗派，教派( sect的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
unlimited
|
|
| adj.无限的，不受控制的，无条件的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
blessing
|
|
| n.祈神赐福；祷告；祝福，祝愿 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
deposed
|
|
| v.罢免( depose的过去式和过去分词 )；（在法庭上）宣誓作证 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
taunted
|
|
| 嘲讽( taunt的过去式和过去分词 )； 嘲弄； 辱骂； 奚落 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
retirement
|
|
| n.退休，退职 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
lamented
|
|
| adj.被哀悼的，令人遗憾的v.（为…）哀悼，痛哭，悲伤( lament的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
withdrawal
|
|
| n.取回，提款；撤退，撤军；收回，撤销 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
embarrassment
|
|
| n.尴尬；使人为难的人(事物)；障碍；窘迫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
lamenting
|
|
| adj.悲伤的，悲哀的v.（为…）哀悼，痛哭，悲伤( lament的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
monarchy
|
|
| n.君主，最高统治者；君主政体，君主国 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
celestial
|
|
| adj.天体的；天上的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
authentic
|
|
| a.真的，真正的；可靠的，可信的，有根据的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
alluded
|
|
| 提及，暗指( allude的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
conclave
|
|
| n.秘密会议，红衣主教团 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
imps
|
|
| n.（故事中的）小恶魔( imp的名词复数 )；小魔鬼；小淘气；顽童 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
malice
|
|
| n.恶意，怨恨，蓄意；[律]预谋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
efficiently
|
|
| adv.高效率地，有能力地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
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： |
|
|
|
|
82
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
requisite
|
|
| adj.需要的，必不可少的；n.必需品 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
humdrum
|
|
| adj.单调的，乏味的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
impoverished
|
|
| adj.穷困的，无力的，用尽了的v.使（某人）贫穷( impoverish的过去式和过去分词 )；使（某物）贫瘠或恶化 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
worthy
|
|
| adj.(of)值得的，配得上的；有价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
felicitous
|
|
| adj.恰当的，巧妙的；n.恰当，贴切 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
virgin
|
|
| n.处女，未婚女子；adj.未经使用的；未经开发的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
implicitly
|
|
| adv. 含蓄地, 暗中地, 毫不保留地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
professing
|
|
| 声称( profess的现在分词 )； 宣称； 公开表明； 信奉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
dispensed
|
|
| v.分配( dispense的过去式和过去分词 )；施与；配（药） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
expound
|
|
| v.详述；解释；阐述 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
sublime
|
|
| adj.崇高的，伟大的；极度的，不顾后果的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
demonstrations
|
|
| 证明( demonstration的名词复数 )； 表明； 表达； 游行示威 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
demonstration
|
|
| n.表明，示范，论证，示威 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
translucent
|
|
| adj.半透明的；透明的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
intelligible
|
|
| adj.可理解的，明白易懂的，清楚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
apex
|
|
| n.顶点，最高点 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
obliquely
|
|
| adv.斜； 倾斜； 间接； 不光明正大 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
perpendicular
|
|
| adj.垂直的，直立的；n.垂直线，垂直的位置 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
elastic
|
|
| n.橡皮圈，松紧带；adj.有弹性的；灵活的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
limbo
|
|
| n.地狱的边缘；监狱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
momentous
|
|
| adj.重要的，重大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
coalesce
|
|
| v.联合，结合，合并 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
symbolic
|
|
| adj.象征性的，符号的，象征主义的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
sacrosanct
|
|
| adj.神圣不可侵犯的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
obtuse
|
|
| adj.钝的；愚钝的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
erect
|
|
| n./v.树立，建立，使竖立；adj.直立的，垂直的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
ERECTED
|
|
| adj. 直立的，竖立的，笔直的 vt. 使 ... 直立，建立 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |