By H. Henley Henson, B.A., Head of the Oxford House in
Bethnal Green. London: Rivingtons.
Some time ago I delivered a lecture in the London Hall of Science on "Christianity and Slavery." Among my critics there was one gentleman, and the circumstance was so noteworthy that my friend the chairman expressed a wish, which I cordially echoed, that we might have the pleasure of hearing him again. A few days ago a pamphlet reached me on the subject of that lecture, written by my friendly opponent, who turns out to be the head of the Oxford House in Bethnal Green. Mr. Henson sends me the pamphlet himself "with his compliments," and I have read it carefully. Indeed, I have marked it in dozens of places where his statements strike me as inaccurate5 and his arguments as fallacious; and, on the whole, I think it best to give him a set answer in this journal. Mr. Henson's paper is not, in my opinion, a very forcible one on the intellectual side. But perhaps that is, in a certain sense, one of its merits; for the Christian1 case in this dispute is so bad that sentiment does it more service than logic6. I must, however, allow that Mr. Henson is a courteous7 disputant, and I hope I shall reciprocate8 his good feeling. When he opposed me at the Hall of Science, he admits that I treated him "with a courtesy which relieves controversy9 of its worst aspects." I trust he will be equally satisfied with my rejoinder. Whenever I may have occasion to express myself strongly, I shall simply be in earnest about the theme, without the least intention of being discourteous10. I mean no offence, and I hope I shall give none.
Mr. Henson says he is dealing11 in a brief compass with a big subject, but "the outlines are clear, and may be perceived very readily by any honest man of moderate intelligence." Well, whether it is that I am not an honest man, or that I possess immoderate intelligence, I certainly do not see the outlines of the subject as Mr. Henson sees them. The relation of Christianity to slavery is an historical question, and Mr. Henson treats it as though it were one of dialectics. However, I suppose I had better follow him, and show that he is wrong even on his own ground.
Mr. Henson undertakes to prove three things. (1) That slavery is flatly opposed to the teaching of the New Testament12. (2) That the abolition13 of slavery in Europe was mainly owing to Christianity. (3) That at this present time Christianity is steadily14 working against slavery all over the world.
Before I discuss the first proposition I must ask why the Old Testament is left out of account. Mr. Henson relegates15 it to a footnote, and there he declares "once for all, that the Mosaic16 Law has nothing to do with the question." But Mr. Henson's "once for all" has not the force of a Papal decree. It is simply a bit of rhetorical emphasis, like a flourish to a signature. Does he mean to say that the author of the Mosaic Law was not the same God who speaks to us in the New Testament? If it was the same God, "the same, yesterday, to-day, and for ever," the Mosaic Law has very much to do with the question; unless—and this is a vital point—Jesus distinctly abrogates18 it in any respect. He did distinctly abrogate17 the lex talionis, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth; but he left the laws of slavery exactly as he found them, and in this he was followed by Peter and Paul, and by all the Fathers of the Church.
Mr. Henson tells us that "the Jews were a barbarous race, and slavery was necessary to that stage of development," and that "the Law of Moses moderated the worst features of slavery." The second statement cannot be discussed, for we do not know what was the condition of slavery among the Jews before the so-called Mosaic Law (centuries after Moses) came into vogue19. The first statement, however, is perfectly20 true; the Jews were barbarous, and slavery among them was inevitable21. But that is speaking humanly. What is the use of God's interference if he does not make people wiser and better? Why did he lay down slavery laws without hinting that they were provisional? Why did he so express himself as to enable Christian divines and whole Churches to justify22 slavery from the Bible long after it had died out of the internal polity of civilised states? Surely God might have given less time to Aaron's vestments and the paraphernalia23 of his own Tabernacle, and devoted24 some of his infinite leisure to teaching the Jews that property in human flesh and blood is immoral25. Instead of that he actually told them, not only how to buy foreigners (Leviticus xxv. 45, 46), but how to enslave their own brethren (Exodus xxi. 2-11).
When Jesus Christ came from heaven to give mankind a new revelation he had a fine opportunity to correct the brutalities of the Mosaic Law. Yet Mr. Henson allows that he "did not actually forbid Slavery in express terms," and that he "never said in so many words, Slavery is wrong." But why not? It will not do to say the time was not ripe, for Mr. Henson admits that in Rome "the fashionable philosophies, especially that of the Stoics27, branded Slavery as an outrage28 against the natural Equality of Men." Surely Jesus Christ might have kept abreast29 of the Stoics. Surely, too, as he did not mean to say anything more for at least two thousand years, he might have gone in advance of the best teaching of the age, so as to provide for the progress of future generations.
But, says Mr. Henson, Jesus Christ "laid down broad principles which took from Slavery its bad features, and tended, by an unerring law to its abolition." Well, the tendency was a remarkably30 slow one. Men still living can remember when Slavery was abolished in the British dominions31. I can remember when it was abolished in the United States. Eighteen centuries of Christian tendency were necessary to kill Slavery! Surely the natural growth of civilisation32 might have done as much in that time, though Jesus Christ had never lived and taught. How civilisation did mitigate33 the horrors of Slavery, and was gradually but surely working towards its abolition, may be seen in Gibbon's second chapter. This was under the great Pagan emperors, some of whom knew Christianity and despised it.
"Slavery is cruel," says Mr. Henson, while "Christianity teaches men to be kind and to love one another." But teaching men to love one another, even if Christianity taught nothing else—which is far from the truth—is a very questionable34 expenditure35 of time and energy; for how is love to be taught? Besides, a master and a slave might be attached to each other—as was often the case—without either seeing that Slavery was a violation36 of the law of love. What was needed was the sentiment of Justice. That has broken the chains of the slave. The Stoics were on the right track after all, while Christianity lost itself in idle sentimentalism.
"Slavery denies the Equality of Men," says Mr. Henson, while "Christianity asserts it strongly." I regret I cannot agree with him. Certain amiable37 texts which he cites might easily be confronted with others of a very different character. What did Christ mean by promising38 that when he came into his kingdom his disciples39 should sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel? How is this consistent with his saying, "call no man master"? What did Paul mean by ordering unlimited40 obedience41 to "the powers that be"? What did he and Peter mean by telling slaves to obey their owners? Is all this consistent with the doctrine42 of human equality? Mr. Henson simply reads into certain New Testament utterances43 what was never in the speakers' minds. His abstract argument is indeed perilous45 in regard to such composite writings as the Gospels and the Epistles. Let it be assumed, for argument's sake, that Christianity does somewhere assert the Equality of Men. Then it condemns47 Royalty48 as well as Slavery; yet Peter says, "Fear God and honor the King." I leave Mr. Henson to extricate49 himself from this dilemma50.
I repeat that all this dialectic is a kind of subterfuge51; at least it is an evasion52. The great fact remains53 that Jesus Christ never breathed a whisper against slavery when he had the opportunity. Yet he could denounce what he disapproved54 in the most vigorous fashion. His objurgation of the Scribes and Pharisees is almost without a parallel. Surely he might have reserved a little of his boisterous55 abuse for an institution which was infinitely56 more harmful than the whole crowd of his rivals. Those who opposed him were overwhelmed with vituperation, but not once did he censure57 those who held millions in cruel bondage58, turning men into mere59 beasts of burden, and women, if they happened to be beautiful, into the most wretched victims of lust60.
Let us now turn to Paul, the great apostle whose teaching has had more influence on the faith and practice of Christendom than that of Jesus himself. Mr. Henson says that "the Apostle does not say one word for or against slavery as such." Again I regret to differ. Paul never said a word against slavery, but he said many words that sanctioned it by implication. He tells slaves (servants in the Authorised Version) to count their owners worthy3 of all honor (1 Tim. vi. 1); to be obedient unto them, with fear and trembling, as unto Christ (Ephesians vi. 5); and to please them in all things (Titus ii. 9). I need not discuss whether servants means slaves and masters owners, for Mr. Henson admits that such is their meaning. Here then Paul is, if Jesus was not, brought face to face with slavery, and he does not even suggest that the institution is wrong. He tells slaves to obey their owners as they obey Christ; and, on the other hand, he bids owners to "forbear threatening" their slaves. But so much might have been said by Cicero and Pliny; the former of whom, as Lecky says, wrote many letters to his slave Tiro "in terms of sincere and delicate friendship"; while the latter "poured out his deep sorrow for the death of some of his slaves, and endeavored to console himself with the thought that as he had emancipated61 them before their death, they had at least died free men."
Paul does indeed say that both bond and free are "all one in Christ." But Louis the Fourteenth would have admitted that kinship between himself and the meanest serf in France, "One in Christ" is a spiritual idea, and has relation to a future life, in which earthly distinctions would naturally cease.
Mr. Henson is obliged to face the story of Onesimus, the runaway62 slave, whom Paul deliberately63 sent back to his master, Philemon. "The Apostle's position," he says, "is practically this"; whereupon he puts into Paul's mouth words of his own invention. I do not deny his right to use this literary artifice65, but I decline to let it impose on my own understanding. There is a certain pathetic tenderness in Paul's letter to Philemon if we suppose that he took the institution of Slavery for granted, but it vanishes if we suppose that he felt the institution to be wrong. Professor Newman justly remarks that "Onesimus, in the very act of taking to flight, showed that he had been submitting to servitude against his will, and that the house of his owner had previously66 been a prison to him." Nor do I see any escape from the same writer's conclusion that, although Paul besought67 Philemon to treat Onesimus as a brother, "this very recommendation, full of affection as it is, virtually recognises the moral rights of Philemon to the services of his slave." Mr. Benson apparently68 feels this himself. "Christian tradition," he says, "declares that Philemon at once set Onesimus free." But "tradition" can hardly be cited as a fact. Mr. Henson says "it is more than probable," or, in other words, certain; yet he cannot expect me to follow him in his illogical leap. Nor, indeed, is the "traditional" liberation of Onesimus of much importance to the argument. Not Philemon's but Paul's views are in dispute; and if Philemon did liberate64 Onesimus—which is a pure assumption—Paul certainly did not advise him to do anything of the kind.
Paul's epistle to Philemon does not, from its very-nature, seem intended for publication. Why then, in the ease of private correspondence, did he not hint that Slavery was only tolerated for the time and would eventually cease? Instead of that he sent back Onesimus to a servitude from which he had fled. How unlike Theodore Parker writing his discourse69, with a runaway slave in the back room, and a revolver on his desk! How unlike Walt Whitman watching the slumber70 of another fugitive71, with one hand on his trusty rifle!
Mr. Henson lives after the abolition of Slavery, and as he clings to his Bible as God's Word he reads into it the morality of a later age. Let him consult the writings of Christian divines on the subject, and he will see that they have almost invariably justified72 Slavery from scripture73. Ignatius (who is said to have seen Jesus), St. Cyprian, Pope Gregory the Great, St. Basil, Tertullian, St. Isidore, St. Augustine, St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Bossuet, all taught that Slavery is a divine institution. During all the centuries from Ignatius to Bossuet, what eminent74 Christian ever denounced Slavery as wicked? Even the Christian jurisprudists of the eighteenth century defended negro slavery, which it was reserved for the sceptical Montesquieu and the arch-heretic Voltaire to condemn46. Montesquieu's ironical75 chapter on the subject is worthy of Molliere, and Voltaire's is an honor to humanity. He called Slavery "the degrada of the species"; and, in answer to Puffendorff, who claimed that slavery had been established by the free consent of the opposing parties, he exclaimed, "I will believe Puffendorff, when he shows me the original contract."
Negro slavery was defended in America by direct appeal to the Bible. Mr. Henson seeks to lessen76 the force of this damning fact by referring to these defenders77 of slavery as "certain clergymen and other Christians79," and as "ignorant and unworthy members of the Church." Certain clergymen! Why, the clergy78 defended slavery almost to a man, and in the Northern States they were even more bigoted80 than in the South. Mrs. Beecher Stowe said that the Church was so familiarly quoted as being on the side of Slavery, that "Statesmen on both sides of the question have laid that down as a settled fact." Theodore Parker said that if the whole American Church had "dropped through the continent and disappeared altogether, the anti-Slavery cause would have been further on." He pointed81 out that no Church ever issued a single tract44, among all its thousands, against property in human flesh and blood; and that 80,000 slaves were owned by Presbyterians, 225,000 by Baptists, and 250,000 by Methodists. Wilberforce himself declared that the American Episcopal Church "raises no voice against the predominant evil; she palliates it in theory, and in practice she shares in it. The mildest and most conscientious82 of the bishops83 of the South are slaveholders themselves." The Harmony Presbytery of South Carolina deliberately resolved that Slavery was justified by Holy Writ4. The Methodist Episcopal Church decided84 in 1840 against allowing any "colored persons" to give testimony85 against "white persons." The College Church of the union Theological Seminary, Prince Edward County, was endowed with slaves, who were hired out to the highest bidder86 for the pastor's salary. Lastly, Professor Moses Stuart, of Andover, who is accounted the greatest American theologian since Jonathan Edwards, declared that "The precepts87 of the New Testament respecting the demeanor88 of slaves and their masters beyond all question recognise the existence of Slavery." So much for Mr. Henson's "certain clergymen."
Mr. Henson also argues that the Northern States were "the most distinctly Christian," and that they were opposed to Slavery. History belies89 this statement Harriet Martineau, when she visited America and stood on the anti-slavery platform, says she was in danger of her life in the North while scarcely molested90 in the South. When William Lloyd Garrison91 delivered his first anti-slavery lecture in Boston, the classic home of American orthodoxy, every Catholic and Protestant church was closed against him, and he was obliged to accept the use of Julian Hall from Abner Kneeland, an infidel who had been prosecuted92 for blasphemy93. It was not "the true spirit of Christianity" which abolished Slavery in the United States, but "the true spirit of Humanity," which inspired some Christians and more Freethinkers to vindicate94 the natural rights of men of all colors. Even in the end, Slavery was not terminated by the vote of the Churches; it was abolished by Lincoln as a strategic act in the midst of a civil war, precisely95 as was predicted by Thomas Paine, who not only hated Slavery while his Christian defamers lived by it, but was more sagacious in his political forecast than all the orthodox statesmen of his age.
"A movement headed by Clarkson and Wilberforce," says Mr. Henson, "could be no other than Christian," But why? Were not the slave-owners also Christians? Was not the strength of Freethinkers, from Jeremy Bentham downwards96, given to the abolition movement? Were not the Freethinkers all on one side, while the Christians were divided? And why did the abolition movement in England wait until new ideas had leavened97 the public mind? Had it been purely98 Christian, would it not have triumphed long before? The fact is there was plenty of Christianity during the preceding thousand years, but the sceptical and humanitarian99 work of the eighteenth century was necessary before there could be any general revolt against injustice100 and oppression. No perversion101 of history can alter the fact that, in the words of Professor Newman, "the first public act against Slavery came from republican France, in the madness of atheistic102 enthusiasm." Mr. Henson sees this clearly himself, and therefore he pretends that all the best ideas of the French Revolution were borrowed from Christianity. Shades of Voltaire and Diderot, of Mirabeau and Danton, listen to this apologist of the faith you despised! Voltaire's face is wreathed with ineffable103 irony104, Diderot contemplates105 the speaker as a new species for a psychological monograph106, Mirabeau flings back his leonine head with a swirl107 of the black mane and a glare of the great eyes, and Danton roars a titanic108 laugh that shakes the very roof of Hades.
Now let us turn to the old indigenous109 Slavery of Europe. Mr. Henson appeals to "the witness of history," and he shall have it. He undertakes to prove "That among the various causes which tended to assuage110 the hardship and threaten the permanence of Slavery, the most powerful, the most active, and most successful was Christianity"; also "That when the barbarian111 conquests re-established slavery in a new form, the Church exerted all her energies on the side of freedom."
That Christianity "threatened" the permanence of Slavery is, of course, purely a matter of opinion. Mr. Henson takes one view, I have given reasons for another, and the reader must judge between us. That it softened112 the rigors113 of Slavery is a very questionable statement. When Mr. Henson says that "Roman Slavery was, perhaps, the most cruel and revolting kind of Slavery," he is guilty of historical confusion. Roman Slavery lasted for very many centuries. In the early ages it was brutal26 enough, but under the great emperors, and especially the Antonines, it was far more merciful than negro Slavery was in Christian America. Slaves were protected by law; the power of putting them to death was taken from the masters and entrusted114 to the magistrates115; and, as Gibbon says, "Upon a just complaint of intolerable treatment, the injured slave either obtained his deliverance or a less cruel master." Compare this with the condition of serfs under the Christian feudal116 system, when, in Mr. Henson's own language, "the serf was tied to the soil, bought and sold with it, the chattel117 of his master, who could overwork, beat, and even kill him at will."
The phrase "re-established Slavery in a new form," seems to imply that Christianity had abolished Slavery before the barbaric conquests. But it had done nothing of the kind. Nay118, as a matter of fact, Constantine and his successors drew a sharper line than ever between slaves and freemen. Constantine (the first Christian emperor) actually decreed death against any freewoman who should marry a slave, while the slave himself was to be burnt alive!
Much of what Mr. Henson says about the manumission of slaves by some of the mediaeval clergy is unquestionably true. But who doubts that, during a thousand years, a humane119 and even a noble heart often beat under a priest's cassock? These manumissions, however, were of Christian slaves. The Pagan slaves—such as the Sclavonians, from whom the word slave is derived—were considered to have no claims at all. Surely the liberation of fellow Christians might spring from proselyte zeal120. "Mohammedans also," as Professor Newman says, "have a conscience against enslaving Mohammedans, and generally bestow121 freedom on a slave as soon as he adopts their religion." Manumission of slaves was common among humane owners under the Roman Empire; indeed Gibbon observes that the law had to guard against the swamping of free citizens by the sudden inrush of "a mean and promiscuous122 multitude." Clerical manumission of slaves in mediaeval times was therefore no novelty. On the other hand, bishops held slaves like kings and nobles. The Abbey of St. Germain de Pres, for instance, owned 80,000 slaves, and the Abbey of St. Martin de Tours 20,000. The monks123, who according to Mr. Henson, did so much to extinguish slavery, owned multitudes of these servile creatures.
The acts of a few humane and noble spirits are no test of the effects of a system. The decisions of Church Councils are a much better criterion. They show the influence of principles, when personal equation is eliminated. Turning to these Councils, then, what do we find? Why that from the Council of Laodicea to the Lateran Council (1215)—that is, for eight hundred years—the Church sanctioned Slavery again and again. Slaves and their owners might be "one in Christ," but the Church taught them to keep their distance on earth.
Civilisation, not Christianity, gradually extinguished Slavery in Europe. Foreign slavery, such as that in our West Indian possessions, is an artificial thing, and may be abolished by the stroke of a pen. But domestic slavery has to die a natural death. The progress of education and refinement125, and the growth of the sentiment of justice, help to extinguish it; but behind these there is an economical law which is no less potent126. Slave labor127 is only consistent with a low industrial life; and thus, as civilisation expands, slavery fades into serfdom, and serfdom into wage-service, as naturally as the darkness of night melts into the morning twilight128, and the twilight into day.
Mr. Henson throws in some not ineloquent remarks about the abolition by Christianity of the gladiatorial shows at Rome. He himself has stood within the ruined Colosseum and re-echoed Byron's heroics. Mr. Henson even outdid Byron, for he looked up to the dome124 of St. Peter's, where gleamed the Cross of Christ, and rejoiced that "He had triumphed at last." "If only Mr. Foote had been there!" Mr. Henson exclaims. Well, Gibbon was there before Mr. Henson and before Byron. What he thought in the Colosseum I know not, but I know that the great project of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire took shape in his mind one eventful evening as he "sat musing129 amidst the ruins of the Capitol, while the barefooted friars were singing vespers in the temple of Jupiter." Yet I suppose Gibbon's fifteenth chapter is scarcely to Mr. Henson's taste. Had I "been there" with Mr. Henson, I too might have had my reflections, and I might have thrown this Freethought douche on his Christian ardor130. "Yes, the Cross has triumphed. There it gleams over the dome of St. Peter's, the mightiest131 church in the world. Below it, until the recent subversion132 of the Pope's temporal power, walked the most ignorant, beggarly and criminal population in Europe. What are these to the men who built up the glory of ancient Rome? What is their city to the magnificent city of old, among whose ruins they walk like pigmies amid the relics133 of giants? This time-eaten, weather-beaten Colosseum saw many a gladiator 'butchered to make a Roman holiday.' But has not Christian Rome witnessed many a viler134 spectacle? Has it not seen hundreds of noble men burnt alive in the name of Christ? When Rome was Pagan, thought was free. Gladiatorial shows satisfied the bestial135 craving136 in vulgar breasts, but the philosophers and poets were unfettered, and the intellect of the few was gradually achieving the redemption of the many. When Rome was Christian, she introduced a new slavery. Thought was scourged137 and chained, while the cruel instincts of the multitude were gratified with exhibitions of suffering, compared with which the bloodiest138 arena139 was tame and insipid140. Your Christian Rome, in the superb metaphor141 of Hobbes, was but the ghost of Pagan Rome, sitting throned and crowned on the grave thereof; nay, a ghoul, feeding not on the dead limbs of men, but on their living hearts and brains. Look at your Cross! Before Christ appeared it was the symbol of life; since it has been the symbol of misery142 and humiliation143; and in the name of your Crucified One the people have been crucified between the spiritual and temporal thieves. But happily your Cross has had its day. St. Peter's may yet crumble144 before the Colosseum, and the statue of a Bruno may outlast145 the walls of the Vatican."
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
Oxford
|
|
| n.牛津（英国城市） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
worthy
|
|
| adj.(of)值得的，配得上的；有价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
writ
|
|
| n.命令状，书面命令 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
inaccurate
|
|
| adj.错误的，不正确的，不准确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
logic
|
|
| n.逻辑(学)；逻辑性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
courteous
|
|
| adj.彬彬有礼的，客气的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
reciprocate
|
|
| v.往复运动；互换；回报，酬答 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
controversy
|
|
| n.争论，辩论，争吵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
discourteous
|
|
| adj.不恭的，不敬的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
dealing
|
|
| n.经商方法，待人态度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
testament
|
|
| n.遗嘱；证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
abolition
|
|
| n.废除，取消 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
steadily
|
|
| adv.稳定地；不变地；持续地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
relegates
|
|
| v.使降级( relegate的第三人称单数 )；使降职；转移；把…归类 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
mosaic
|
|
| n./adj.镶嵌细工的，镶嵌工艺品的，嵌花式的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
abrogate
|
|
| v.废止，废除 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
abrogates
|
|
| 废除（法律等）( abrogate的第三人称单数 )； 取消； 去掉； 抛开 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
19
Vogue
|
|
| n.时髦，时尚；adj.流行的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
inevitable
|
|
| adj.不可避免的，必然发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
justify
|
|
| vt.证明…正当(或有理)，为…辩护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
paraphernalia
|
|
| n.装备；随身用品 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
devoted
|
|
| adj.忠诚的，忠实的，热心的，献身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
immoral
|
|
| adj.不道德的，淫荡的，荒淫的，有伤风化的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
brutal
|
|
| adj.残忍的，野蛮的，不讲理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
stoics
|
|
| 禁欲主义者，恬淡寡欲的人，不以苦乐为意的人( stoic的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
outrage
|
|
| n.暴行，侮辱，愤怒；vt.凌辱，激怒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
abreast
|
|
| adv.并排地；跟上(时代)的步伐，与…并进地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
remarkably
|
|
| ad.不同寻常地，相当地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
dominions
|
|
| 统治权( dominion的名词复数 )； 领土； 疆土； 版图 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
civilisation
|
|
| n.文明，文化，开化，教化 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
mitigate
|
|
| vt.（使）减轻，（使）缓和 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
questionable
|
|
| adj.可疑的，有问题的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
expenditure
|
|
| n.(时间、劳力、金钱等)支出；使用，消耗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
violation
|
|
| n.违反(行为)，违背(行为)，侵犯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
amiable
|
|
| adj.和蔼可亲的，友善的，亲切的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
promising
|
|
| adj.有希望的，有前途的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
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： |
|
|
|
|
40
unlimited
|
|
| adj.无限的，不受控制的，无条件的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
obedience
|
|
| n.服从，顺从 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
utterances
|
|
| n.发声( utterance的名词复数 )；说话方式；语调；言论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
tract
|
|
| n.传单，小册子，大片(土地或森林) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
perilous
|
|
| adj.危险的，冒险的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
condemn
|
|
| vt.谴责，指责；宣判(罪犯)，判刑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
condemns
|
|
| v.（通常因道义上的原因而）谴责( condemn的第三人称单数 )；宣判；宣布…不能使用；迫使…陷于不幸的境地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
royalty
|
|
| n.皇家，皇族 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
extricate
|
|
| v.拯救，救出；解脱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
dilemma
|
|
| n.困境，进退两难的局面 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
subterfuge
|
|
| n.诡计；藉口 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
evasion
|
|
| n.逃避，偷漏(税) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
disapproved
|
|
| v.不赞成( disapprove的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
boisterous
|
|
| adj.喧闹的，欢闹的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
infinitely
|
|
| adv.无限地，无穷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
censure
|
|
| v./n.责备；非难；责难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
bondage
|
|
| n.奴役，束缚 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
lust
|
|
| n.性(淫)欲；渴(欲)望；vi.对…有强烈的欲望 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
emancipated
|
|
| adj.被解放的，不受约束的v.解放某人（尤指摆脱政治、法律或社会的束缚）( emancipate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
runaway
|
|
| n.逃走的人，逃亡，亡命者；adj.逃亡的，逃走的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
deliberately
|
|
| adv.审慎地；蓄意地；故意地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
liberate
|
|
| v.解放，使获得自由，释出，放出；vt.解放，使获自由 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
artifice
|
|
| n.妙计，高明的手段；狡诈，诡计 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
previously
|
|
| adv.以前，先前（地） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
besought
|
|
| v.恳求，乞求（某事物）( beseech的过去式和过去分词 )；(beseech的过去式与过去分词) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
discourse
|
|
| n.论文，演说；谈话；话语；vi.讲述，著述 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
slumber
|
|
| n.睡眠，沉睡状态 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
fugitive
|
|
| adj.逃亡的，易逝的；n.逃犯，逃亡者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
justified
|
|
| a.正当的，有理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
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： |
|
|
|
|
74
eminent
|
|
| adj.显赫的，杰出的，有名的，优良的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
ironical
|
|
| adj.讽刺的，冷嘲的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
lessen
|
|
| vt.减少，减轻；缩小 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
defenders
|
|
| n.防御者( defender的名词复数 )；守卫者；保护者；辩护者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
clergy
|
|
| n.[总称]牧师，神职人员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
Christians
|
|
| n.基督教徒( Christian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
bigoted
|
|
| adj.固执己见的，心胸狭窄的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
pointed
|
|
| adj.尖的，直截了当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
conscientious
|
|
| adj.审慎正直的，认真的，本着良心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
bishops
|
|
| （基督教某些教派管辖大教区的）主教( bishop的名词复数 )； （国际象棋的）象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
testimony
|
|
| n.证词；见证，证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
bidder
|
|
| n.(拍卖时的)出价人，报价人，投标人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
precepts
|
|
| n.规诫，戒律，箴言( precept的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
demeanor
|
|
| n.行为；风度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
belies
|
|
| v.掩饰( belie的第三人称单数 )；证明（或显示）…为虚假；辜负；就…扯谎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
molested
|
|
| v.骚扰( molest的过去式和过去分词 )；干扰；调戏；猥亵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
garrison
|
|
| n.卫戍部队；驻地，卫戍区；vt.派(兵)驻防 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
prosecuted
|
|
| a.被起诉的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
blasphemy
|
|
| n.亵渎，渎神 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
vindicate
|
|
| v.为…辩护或辩解，辩明；证明…正确 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
downwards
|
|
| adj./adv.向下的（地），下行的（地） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
leavened
|
|
| adj.加酵母的v.使（面团）发酵( leaven的过去式和过去分词 )；在…中掺入改变的因素 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
purely
|
|
| adv.纯粹地，完全地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
humanitarian
|
|
| n.人道主义者，博爱者，基督凡人论者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
injustice
|
|
| n.非正义，不公正，不公平，侵犯（别人的）权利 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
perversion
|
|
| n.曲解；堕落；反常 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
atheistic
|
|
| adj.无神论者的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
ineffable
|
|
| adj.无法表达的，不可言喻的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
irony
|
|
| n.反语，冷嘲；具有讽刺意味的事，嘲弄 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
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： |
|
|
|
|
106
monograph
|
|
| n.专题文章，专题著作 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
swirl
|
|
| v.(使)打漩，(使)涡卷；n.漩涡，螺旋形 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
titanic
|
|
| adj.巨人的，庞大的，强大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
indigenous
|
|
| adj.土产的，土生土长的，本地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
assuage
|
|
| v.缓和，减轻，镇定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
barbarian
|
|
| n.野蛮人；adj.野蛮(人)的；未开化的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
softened
|
|
| （使）变软( soften的过去式和过去分词 )； 缓解打击； 缓和； 安慰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
rigors
|
|
| 严格( rigor的名词复数 )； 严酷； 严密； （由惊吓或中毒等导致的身体）僵直 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
entrusted
|
|
| v.委托，托付( entrust的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
magistrates
|
|
| 地方法官，治安官( magistrate的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
feudal
|
|
| adj.封建的，封地的，领地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
chattel
|
|
| n.动产；奴隶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
nay
|
|
| adv.不；n.反对票，投反对票者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
humane
|
|
| adj.人道的，富有同情心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
zeal
|
|
| n.热心，热情，热忱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
bestow
|
|
| v.把…赠与，把…授予；花费 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
promiscuous
|
|
| adj.杂乱的，随便的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
monks
|
|
| n.修道士，僧侣( monk的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
dome
|
|
| n.圆屋顶，拱顶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
refinement
|
|
| n.文雅；高尚；精美；精制；精炼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
potent
|
|
| adj.强有力的，有权势的；有效力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
labor
|
|
| n.劳动，努力，工作，劳工；分娩；vi.劳动，努力，苦干；vt.详细分析；麻烦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
twilight
|
|
| n.暮光，黄昏；暮年，晚期，衰落时期 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
musing
|
|
| n. 沉思，冥想 adj. 沉思的, 冥想的 动词muse的现在分词形式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
ardor
|
|
| n.热情，狂热 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
mightiest
|
|
| adj.趾高气扬( mighty的最高级 )；巨大的；强有力的；浩瀚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
subversion
|
|
| n.颠覆，破坏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
relics
|
|
| [pl.］n.遗物，遗迹，遗产；遗体，尸骸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
viler
|
|
| adj.卑鄙的( vile的比较级 )；可耻的；极坏的；非常讨厌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
bestial
|
|
| adj.残忍的；野蛮的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
craving
|
|
| n.渴望,热望 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
scourged
|
|
| 鞭打( scourge的过去式和过去分词 )； 惩罚，压迫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
bloodiest
|
|
| adj.血污的( bloody的最高级 )；流血的；屠杀的；残忍的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
arena
|
|
| n.竞技场，运动场所；竞争场所，舞台 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
insipid
|
|
| adj.无味的，枯燥乏味的，单调的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
metaphor
|
|
| n.隐喻，暗喻 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
misery
|
|
| n.痛苦，苦恼，苦难；悲惨的境遇，贫苦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
humiliation
|
|
| n.羞辱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
crumble
|
|
| vi.碎裂，崩溃；vt.弄碎，摧毁 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
outlast
|
|
| v.较…耐久 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |