Doubtless the Lord had his own purpose to subserve in giving different kinds of testimony—divine and human—to the same truth. The testimony of the Three Witnesses, attended as it was by such remarkable2 displays of supernatural power, he knew would be opposed from the very circumstance of its being supernatural. It cannot be but that God fore-knew of the rise of that so-called "Rational Criticism" of divine things which would resolve inspired dreams, visions, revelations and the administration of angels into hallucinations, brought about first by an inclination4 to believe in the miraculous5, (and "ordinarily," argue the "Rational Critics," "expectation is the father of its object.")[1] supplemented by the theory of self-deception6, self-hypnosis or hypnotic influence of others. This particular school of philosophers took its rise in the last century, and in the twentieth is much in vogue7.
It will be remembered that the starting point with "Rational Criticism" (and in that term is included the so-called "Higher Criticism") is unbelief in what is commonly called the miraculous, and if the followers8 of that school do not deny the possibility of the miraculous, they at least say that it has never been proven; and further, they hold that "a supernatural relation"—such as the testimony of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, for instance—"cannot be accepted as such, that it always implies credulity or imposture9."[2] What chance, then, would the testimony of the Three Witnesses have with those who regard it as "an absolute rule of criticism to deny a place in history to narratives10 of miraculous circumstances?" This, they hold, "is simply the dictation of observation. Such facts have never been really proved. All the pretended miracles near enough to be examined are referable to illusion or imposture!"[3] Nor is this the climax11 of their absurdity12, but they hold that the very "honesty and sincerity13" of those who testify to the miraculous make them all the more untrustworthy as witnesses! I know this seems incredible; but what will be thought when I set down my authority for the statement, and it is learned that I quote no mere16 blatant17 declaimer against religion, nor any one of the many careless, or ill-informed writers of the so-called "Rational School of Critics," but the sober-minded, and earnest man of science, the late Professor Huxley? The statement quoted is from his paper on "The Value of Witnesses to the Miraculous."[4] In the course of treating upon some statements made by one Eginhard (eighth century A.D.), concerning miraculous events connected with SS. Marcellinus and Petrus, the professor takes occasion to bear testimony to the high character, acute intelligence, large instruction and sincerity of Eginhard; then speaking of him as a witness to the miraculous, makes this astonishing statement:
It is hard upon Eginhard to say, but it is exactly the honesty and sincerity of the man which are his undoing18 as a witness to the miraculous. He himself makes it quite obvious that when his profound piety19 comes on the stage, his goodness and even his perception of right and wrong make their exit.
In another paper to the same magazine, three months later, the professor, writing practically on the same subject, says:
Where the miraculous is concerned, neither undoubted honesty, nor knowledge of the world, nor proved faithfulness as civil historians, nor profound piety, on the part of eye witnesses and contemporaries affords any guarantee of the objective truth of their statements, when we know that a firm belief in the miraculous was ingrained in their minds, and was the presupposition of their observations and reasonings.[5]
This school of critics—and its following is much larger than is generally admitted—in this arbitrary way gets rid of the miracles of both the Old and the New Testament21. The resurrection of Jesus, to them, is but a figment of the over-wrought22 minds of his disciples23; and has no better foundation than the dreams and light visions of women, foremost among whom is Mary of Magdala,[6] the once possessed24. The glorious departure of Jesus from the midst of his disciples, on Mount Olivet—after the resurrection—is merely a collective hallucination, an illusion—"the air on these mountain tops is full of strange mirages26!"[7] The display of God's power on the day of Pentecost as revealed in the Acts of the Apostles, is a thunderstorm.[8] The speaking in tongues by the apostles on the same occasion and thereafter in the Church, is but the ecstatic utterance27 of incoherent sounds mistaken for a foreign language; while prophecy is but the fruit of mental excitement, a sort of ecstatic frenzy28.[9]
With views such as these quite prevalent in Christendom, relative to miraculous events, it is but to be expected that the testimony of the Three Witnesses would be accounted for on some similar hypothesis. The early anti-Mormon writers generally assumed a conspiracy29 between Joseph Smith and the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, and hence accorded no importance[10] to the testimony of either group—the Three or the Eight. Later, however, the force of the testimony of the Witnesses persisting, and pressing for an explanation which the theory of conspiracy and collusion did not satisfy, there began to be advanced the theory that probably Joseph Smith had in some way deceived the Witnesses and thus brought them to give their testimony to the world. "Either these Witnesses were grossly deceived by a lying prophet," says Daniel P. Kidder, who wrote an unfriendly book against the Church in 1843, "or else they wickedly and wilfully30 perjured31 themselves, by swearing to what they knew to be false." "The former," he adds, "although not very creditable to their good sense, is yet the more charitable opinion, and is rendered probable by the fact, that hundreds have been deceived in the same way. It is confirmed, moreover, by the well-known mental phenomenon, that to individuals accustomed to disregard the laws of veracity32, truth and falsehood are alike. They can as easily persuade themselves of the one as of the other."[11]
Also the Rev3. Henry Caswell, professor of divinity in Kemper College, Missouri, writing in 1843, said:
He [Joseph Smith] then persuaded [Martin] Harris to believe, that in some sense he actually beheld33 the wonderful plates. There was a worthless fellow named Oliver Cowdery, residing in the neighborhood, a school teacher by profession, and also a Baptist preacher, who, together with one David Whitmer, was similarly persuaded by our ingenious Prophet.[12]
Professor J. B. Turner, of Illinois College, Jacksonville, Illinois, in his "Mormonism in All Ages" (1842), takes practically the same position, but goes a step further and undertakes to explain how the Prophet "deceived" the Witnesses, or how he "persuaded" them to believe, "in some sense," that they had actually beheld "the wonderful plates." In doing this the professor quotes the revelation given through the Prophet, in June, 1829, to Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris, previous to their viewing the Nephite plates.[13] Also the revelation to Martin Harris in which he is promised that he shall be a witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon.[14] In the revelations cited the Lord promises these men that they shall view the Nephite record; and directs what they shall say after they have seen and heard the things promised. Because some of the phraseology of these revelations is found also in the testimony of the Three Witnesses, the professor rushes to the conclusion that the Witnesses never really saw the vision, nor heard the voice of God as promised, but were persuaded to accept these revelations through Joseph Smith as their witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon. In other words Professor Turner's theory is that the Witnesses had no other evidence than the word of Joseph Smith for the existence of the plates and other sacred things connected with them! And he triumphantly34 exclaims:
Here, then, is the mighty35 power of God, the angel, and voice of the Lord, which revealed such marvels37 in 1830, all concentrated in the person, and pouring from the mouth of the Lord's Prophet in 1829. * * * * The whole, then, of this mighty array of bombast38, nonsense, and blasphemy39, resolves itself into this: "Joe Smith is not only 'author and proprietor40' of the Book of Mormon, as both he and his Witnesses declare, but he is also 'power of god,' 'angel,' 'voice,' 'faith,' 'eyes,' 'ears,' and 'hands' for the Witnesses themselves; that is, all the evidence the world has for the Book of Mormon, after all this bluster41, is 'Joe Smith's say so.' He says that God instructs him, he instructs the Witnesses and the Witnesses instruct the world. Quod erat demonstradum!" (p. 179.)
Undoubtedly42 the "Illinois College" of the great State of Illinois was to be congratulated upon having as its chief professor, in 1842, a man of such acuteness of intelligence and profoundness of wisdom! Nor was Governor Thomas Ford20, when, some years later, he wrote the history of Illinois, to be out-done by a mere professor of "Illinois College;" and therefore advanced what he had heard concerning the manner in which the testimony of the Witnesses was obtained. The Governor's peculiar43 relation to "Mormonism," no less than his exalted44 political station in Illinois, as also the fact that he is one of the principal historians of that very great state of the American union, justifies45 me in setting down what he has said upon the subject in hand:
It is related that the Prophet's early followers were anxious to see the plates; the Prophet had always given out that they could not be seen by the carnal eye, but must be spiritually discerned; that the power to see them depended upon faith, and was the gift of God to be obtained by fasting, prayer, mortification46 of the flesh, and exercise of the spirit; that so soon as he could see the evidence of a strong and lively faith in any of his followers, they should be gratified in their holy curiosity. He set them to continual prayer, and other spiritual exercises, to acquire this lively faith by means of which the hidden things of God could be spiritually discerned; and at last, when he could delay them no longer, he assembled them in a room, and produced a box, which he said contained the precious treasure. The lid was opened; the Witnesses peeped into it, but making no discovery, for the box was empty, they said, "Brother Joseph, we do not see the plates." The Prophet answered them, "O ye of little faith! How long will God bear with this wicked and perverse47 generation? Down on your knees, brethren, every one of you, and pray God for the forgiveness of your sins; and for a holy and living faith which cometh down from heaven." The disciples dropped to their knees, and began to pray in the fervency48 of their spirit, supplicating49 God for more than two hours with fanatical earnestness; at the end of which time, looking again into the box, they were now persuaded that they saw the plates.
The governor then very sagely50 remarks, with a modesty51 so worthy14 to keep company with the exalted intelligence that could stoop to detail such mere drivel as above:
I leave it to philosophers to determine whether the fumes52 of an enthusiastic and fanatical imagination are thus capable of binding53 the mind and deceiving the senses by so absurd a delusion54.[15]
Inadequate55 as these theories are to account for the testimony of the Three Witnesses, and contemptible56 as they are for their childishness, they do not fail of more modern advocates. In 1899 a work published by the Appletons, which, while it was a work of fiction, was nevertheless an earnest effort to account for Joseph Smith on some other basis than that of his being a conscious fraud, wickedly bent57 on deceiving mankind, adopted the theory that "Smith was genuinely deluded58 by the automatic freaks of a vigorous but undisciplined brain, and that yielding to these he became confirmed in the hysterical59 temperament60, which always adds to delusion, self-deception, and to self-deception half-conscious fraud. In his day it was necessary to reject a marvel36 or admit its spiritual significance; granting an honest delusion as to his visions and his book, his only choice lay between counting himself the sport of devils or the agent of heaven; an optimistic temperament cast the die."[16]
It remained, however, for the year of grace 1902 to witness the setting forth61 of these theories under the learned formulas of a scientific treatise62, in which the testimony of the Witnesses received special consideration. Mr. I. Woodbridge Riley, the author of the work referred to, after quoting the account of the exhibition of the plates by the angel to the Three Witnesses, as related in the History of Joseph Smith,[17] regards the duty before him to be to find to what degree the manifestations64 are explicable on the grounds "of subjective65 hallucination, induced by hypnotic suggestion."[18]
Mr. Riley proceeds to show that the Prophet possessed "magnetic power," and that the Witnesses were "sensitive subjects," and then says:
Given, then, such an influence, and sensitive subjects, and mental suggestion could produce anything in the way of illusion. Thus the explanation is subjective, not objective; it was captivation but not fascination66; there was leader and led, and the former succeeded in inducing in the latter all the phantasmagoria of religious ardor67. * * * * Again, the vision of the plates may be related in a larger way with what has gone before. Of the three classes of hallucinations, two have already been explicated. Joseph's father had the ordinary hallucination of dream; his grandfather that which persists into the waking state. The vision of the Three Witnesses is that form of hallucination which may occur either in the normal state, or be induced in the state of light hypnosis. The former is exemplified in day dreams; it is largely self-induced and implies some capacity or visualizing68. The latter may also occur with the eyes open, but it is induced by the positive suggestion of another. * * * * * As the hypnotized soldier will hear the voice of his old commander, or the devout69 French peasant see his patron Saint, so was it in these manifestations. The ideas and interest which were uppermost in the mind were projected outwards70. Harris had received the first "transcription of the gold plates;" Whitmer had been saturated71 with notions of ancient engravings; Cowdery, for weeks at a time, had listened to the sound of a voice translating the record of the Nephites. When the voice was again heard in the grove72, when the four sought "by fervent73 and humble74 prayer to have a view of the plates," there is little wonder that there arose a psychic75 mirage25, complete in every detail. Furthermore, the rotation76 in prayer, the failure of the first two attempts, the repeated workings of the Prophet over the doubting Harris, but served to bring out the additional incentives77 to the hypnotic hallucination.[19]
Thus "Rational Criticism" would explain away the testimony given by the Three Witnesses. The vision of the plates, of the angel, the glory of God that shone about the Witnesses, the voice of God from the midst of the glory—all was illusion, hallucination produced by mental suggestion, on the part of the Prophet. All was chimerical78, a mental mirage!
But what of the testimony of the Eight Witnesses—all so plain, matter-of-fact, straight-forward and real? How shall that be accounted for? Here all the miraculous is absent. It is a man to man transaction. Neither superstition79, nor expectation of the supernatural can play any part in working up an illusion or mental mirage respecting what the Eight Witnesses saw and handled. Their testimony must be accounted for on some other hypothesis than that of hallucination. And indeed it is. Some regard it as a mere fabrication of interested parties to the general scheme of deception. This, however, is an arbitrary proceeding80, not warranted by a just treatment of the facts involved. Others, impressed with the evident honesty of the Witnesses, or not being able to account for the matter in any other way, admit that Joseph Smith must have had plates which he exhibited to the Eight Witnesses, but deceived them as to the manner in which he came in possession of them. Of the latter class is Pomeroy Tucker, whose home during the coming forth of the Book of Mormon was at Palmyra, where the book was printed, and who claims a personal acquaintance with the Prophet and all his associates in the work at Palmyra. He refers to the fact of metallic81 plates covered with hieroglyphics82 having been discovered in various parts of the country, making special mention of some found in Mexico by Professor Rafinesque, and mentioned by the Professor in his Asiatic Journal for 1832; and some others found in Pike County, Illinois, a cleansing83 of which by sulphuric acid brought out the characters engraven upon them very distinctly. Mr. Tucker then says:
Smith may have obtained through Rigdon (the literary genius behind the screen) one of these glyphs, which resemble so nearly his description of the book he pretended to find on Mormon Hill [Cumorah]. For the credit of human character, it is better at any rate to presume this, and that the eleven ignorant Witnesses were deceived, by appearances, than to conclude that they wilfully committed such gross moral perjury84 before high heaven as their solemn averments imply.[20]
Rev. William Harris, writing in 1841, while not admitting the honesty of the Witnesses himself, suggests, nevertheless, the possibility of Joseph Smith deceiving the Eight Witnesses by presenting to them plates of his own manufacture:
Now, even admitting, for the sake of argument, that these Witnesses are all honest and credible15 men, yet what would be easier than for Smith to deceive them? Could he not easily procure85 plates to be made, and inscribe86 thereon a set of characters, no matter what, and then exhibit them to his intended Witnesses as genuine? What would be easier than thus to impose on their credulity and weakness? And if it were necessary to give them the appearance of antiquity87, a chemical process could easily effect the matter.[21]
So Daniel P. Kidder, writing in 1842, says, in commenting on the testimony of the Witnesses:
That these men may have seen plates is very possible. * * * * * That Smith showed them plates, which to ignorant men had the appearance of gold, is easy enough to be believed; and if he had manufactured the same, it would have been no great stretch of ingenuity88.[22]
Professor J.B. Turner, writing in 1842, adopts the same theory with reference to the testimony of the Eight Witnesses:
We are not only willing, but anxious to admit that Smith did show some plates of some sort; and that they [the Eight Witnesses] actually testify to the truth, so far as they are capable of knowing it.[23]
So John Hyde,[24] 1857:
Every careful reader must be compelled to admit that Smith did have some plates of some kind. Smith's antecedents and subsequents, show that he did not have genius sufficient to originate the whole conception, without some palpable suggestion. The having chanced to have found some plates in a mound89, as Wiley found his, or as Chase discovered Smith's "Peepstone," would be just such an event as would suggest every peculiar statement Smith made about his plates, at the same time account for what is known; and, therefore, it is more than reasonable to conclude that Smith found his plates while digging gold. This entirely90 destroys all the shadow of argument so laboriously91 compiled by the "Mormon" apologists, which, even without this, although their strongest argument, only proves that he had some plates, but at the same time has no force of proof as to Smith's obtaining them from an angel.[25]
Professor Riley, with some other anti-"Mormon" writers, suggests the possibility of collective hypnotization in the case of the Eight as well as in that of the Three Witnesses: and hypnotization produced both visual and sense illusion; but it is only a suggestion. While maintaining, with the utmost confidence the mental mirage theory, induced by hypnotic suggestion, as an adequate accounting92 for the testimony of the Three Witnesses, he can only suggest it as a possible solution of the testimony of the Eight Witnesses, and inclines rather to the theory of "pure fabrication." "It is a document," he remarks, "due to the affidavit93 habit."[26]
As for the rest of the anti-"Mormon" critics on this point, they adopt the pure fabrication theory, or admit that the Prophet Joseph had in his possession some kind of plates which he either manufactured or accidentally discovered in his alleged94 searching after hidden treasures for some of his employers, and which he really exhibited to the Eight Witnesses. But why have the "pure fabrication" theory to account for the testimony of the Eight Witnesses, and the "mental hallucination" theory to account for the testimony of the Three? If the testimony of the Eight is pure fabrication is not the testimony of the Three pure fabrication also? Or, at least, is it not most likely to be so? For if conscious fraud, and pure fabrication lurks95 anywhere in Joseph Smith's and the Eleven Witnesses' account of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, would it not exist throughout the whole proceeding? Professor Turner, already twice quoted, in admitting that the Prophet had in his possession some sort of plates, which he showed the Eight Witnesses, says that he is anxious to make the admission "in order to keep up the just and charitable equilibrium96 between the knaves97 and fools in 'Mormonism' and the world at large. Three to Eight is at once a happy and reasonable proportion. We will not disturb it. It is gratifying to human philanthropy to be able to account for all the facts in the case by this charitable solution." This sarcasm98, however, is not a "solution;" nor is it refutation of the testimony of the Witnesses; nor is it argument; nor anything but the fuming99 of a small mind; yet it is the only "reason" I have ever heard advanced for adopting the hallucination theory in the case of the Three Witnesses, and either the pure fabrication or deception theory in the case of the Eight Witnesses.
The testimony of the Three and the Eight Witnesses, respectively, stands or falls together. If the pure fabrication theory is adopted to explain away the testimony of the Eight Witnesses, there is no reason why it should not be adopted to explain away the testimony of the Three. But every circumstance connected with the testimony of all these Witnesses, as we have seen, cries out against the theory of "pure fabrication." It is in recognition of the evident honesty of the Three Witnesses that the theory of mental hallucination is invented to account for their testimony; as it is also the evident honesty of the Eight Witnesses that leads to the admission by many anti-"Mormon" writers that Joseph Smith must have had some kind of plates which he exhibited to the Eight Witnesses, though he may not have obtained them through supernatural means.
The theory of pure fabrication of the testimony of the Witnesses is absolutely overwhelmed by the evidence of their honesty.
The hallucination theory breaks down under the force of the matter-of-fact testimony of the Eight Witnesses, from which all possible elements of hallucination are absent.
The manifestation63 of the divine power, through which the Three Witnesses received their testimony, destroys the theory of deception alleged to have been practiced by the Prophet on the credulity of the Eight Witnesses by exhibiting plates either manufactured by himself or accidentally discovered.
Such, then, is the force of this direct testimony of the Eleven Witnesses to the truth of the Book of Mormon—the testimony of the Three and the Eight when considered together. It is so palpably true that it cannot be resolved into illusion or mistake. It is so evidently honest that it cannot be resolved into pure fabrication. It is of such a nature that it could not possibly have been the result of deception wrought by the cunning of Joseph Smith. There remains100 after these but one other theory: "The Witnesses were honest." They saw and heard and handled what they say they saw, and heard, and handled. Their testimony stands not only unimpeached, but unimpeachable101.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
testimony
|
|
| n.证词；见证，证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
rev
|
|
| v.发动机旋转，加快速度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
inclination
|
|
| n.倾斜；点头；弯腰；斜坡；倾度；倾向；爱好 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
miraculous
|
|
| adj.像奇迹一样的，不可思议的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
deception
|
|
| n.欺骗，欺诈；骗局，诡计 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
Vogue
|
|
| n.时髦，时尚；adj.流行的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
followers
|
|
| 追随者( follower的名词复数 )； 用户； 契据的附面； 从动件 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
imposture
|
|
| n.冒名顶替，欺骗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
narratives
|
|
| 记叙文( narrative的名词复数 )； 故事； 叙述； 叙述部分 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
climax
|
|
| n.顶点；高潮；v.(使)达到顶点 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
absurdity
|
|
| n.荒谬，愚蠢；谬论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
sincerity
|
|
| n.真诚，诚意；真实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
worthy
|
|
| adj.(of)值得的，配得上的；有价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
credible
|
|
| adj.可信任的，可靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
blatant
|
|
| adj.厚颜无耻的；显眼的；炫耀的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
undoing
|
|
| n.毁灭的原因，祸根；破坏，毁灭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
piety
|
|
| n.虔诚，虔敬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
Ford
|
|
| n.浅滩，水浅可涉处；v.涉水，涉过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
testament
|
|
| n.遗嘱；证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
wrought
|
|
| v.引起；以…原料制作；运转；adj.制造的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
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： |
|
|
|
|
24
possessed
|
|
| adj.疯狂的；拥有的，占有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
mirage
|
|
| n.海市蜃楼，幻景 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
mirages
|
|
| n.海市蜃楼，幻景( mirage的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
utterance
|
|
| n.用言语表达，话语，言语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
frenzy
|
|
| n.疯狂，狂热，极度的激动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
conspiracy
|
|
| n.阴谋，密谋，共谋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
wilfully
|
|
| adv.任性固执地；蓄意地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
perjured
|
|
| adj.伪证的，犯伪证罪的v.发假誓，作伪证( perjure的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
veracity
|
|
| n.诚实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
beheld
|
|
| v.看，注视( behold的过去式和过去分词 )；瞧；看呀；（叙述中用于引出某人意外的出现）哎哟 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
triumphantly
|
|
| ad.得意洋洋地；得胜地；成功地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
mighty
|
|
| adj.强有力的；巨大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
marvel
|
|
| vi.(at)惊叹vt.感到惊异；n.令人惊异的事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
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： |
|
|
|
|
38
bombast
|
|
| n.高调，夸大之辞 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
blasphemy
|
|
| n.亵渎，渎神 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
proprietor
|
|
| n.所有人；业主；经营者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
bluster
|
|
| v.猛刮；怒冲冲的说；n.吓唬，怒号；狂风声 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
undoubtedly
|
|
| adv.确实地，无疑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
peculiar
|
|
| adj.古怪的，异常的；特殊的，特有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
exalted
|
|
| adj.(地位等)高的，崇高的；尊贵的，高尚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
justifies
|
|
| 证明…有理( justify的第三人称单数 )； 为…辩护； 对…作出解释； 为…辩解（或辩护） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
mortification
|
|
| n.耻辱，屈辱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
perverse
|
|
| adj.刚愎的；坚持错误的，行为反常的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
fervency
|
|
| n.热情的；强烈的；热烈 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
supplicating
|
|
| v.祈求，哀求，恳求( supplicate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
sagely
|
|
| adv. 贤能地，贤明地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
modesty
|
|
| n.谦逊，虚心，端庄，稳重，羞怯，朴素 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
fumes
|
|
| n.(强烈而刺激的)气味，气体 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
binding
|
|
| 有约束力的，有效的，应遵守的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
delusion
|
|
| n.谬见，欺骗，幻觉，迷惑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
inadequate
|
|
| adj.(for,to)不充足的，不适当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
contemptible
|
|
| adj.可鄙的，可轻视的，卑劣的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
bent
|
|
| n.爱好，癖好；adj.弯的；决心的，一心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
deluded
|
|
| v.欺骗，哄骗( delude的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
hysterical
|
|
| adj.情绪异常激动的，歇斯底里般的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
temperament
|
|
| n.气质，性格，性情 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
treatise
|
|
| n.专著；(专题)论文 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
manifestation
|
|
| n.表现形式；表明；现象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
manifestations
|
|
| n.表示，显示（manifestation的复数形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
subjective
|
|
| a.主观(上)的，个人的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
fascination
|
|
| n.令人着迷的事物，魅力，迷恋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
ardor
|
|
| n.热情，狂热 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
visualizing
|
|
| 肉眼观察 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
devout
|
|
| adj.虔诚的，虔敬的，衷心的 (n.devoutness) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
outwards
|
|
| adj.外面的，公开的，向外的；adv.向外；n.外形 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
saturated
|
|
| a.饱和的，充满的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
grove
|
|
| n.林子，小树林，园林 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
fervent
|
|
| adj.热的，热烈的，热情的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
humble
|
|
| adj.谦卑的，恭顺的；地位低下的；v.降低，贬低 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
psychic
|
|
| n.对超自然力敏感的人；adj.有超自然力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
rotation
|
|
| n.旋转；循环，轮流 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
incentives
|
|
| 激励某人做某事的事物( incentive的名词复数 )； 刺激； 诱因； 动机 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
chimerical
|
|
| adj.荒诞不经的，梦幻的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
superstition
|
|
| n.迷信，迷信行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
proceeding
|
|
| n.行动，进行，(pl.)会议录，学报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
metallic
|
|
| adj.金属的；金属制的；含金属的；产金属的；像金属的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
hieroglyphics
|
|
| n.pl.象形文字 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
cleansing
|
|
| n. 净化(垃圾) adj. 清洁用的 动词cleanse的现在分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
perjury
|
|
| n.伪证；伪证罪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
procure
|
|
| vt.获得，取得，促成；vi.拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
inscribe
|
|
| v.刻；雕；题写；牢记 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
antiquity
|
|
| n.古老；高龄；古物，古迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
ingenuity
|
|
| n.别出心裁；善于发明创造 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
mound
|
|
| n.土墩，堤，小山；v.筑堤，用土堆防卫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
laboriously
|
|
| adv.艰苦地；费力地；辛勤地；（文体等）佶屈聱牙地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
accounting
|
|
| n.会计，会计学，借贷对照表 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
affidavit
|
|
| n.宣誓书 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
alleged
|
|
| a.被指控的，嫌疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
lurks
|
|
| n.潜在，潜伏；（lurk的复数形式）vi.潜伏，埋伏（lurk的第三人称单数形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
equilibrium
|
|
| n.平衡，均衡，相称，均势，平静 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
knaves
|
|
| n.恶棍，无赖( knave的名词复数 )；（纸牌中的）杰克 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
sarcasm
|
|
| n.讥讽，讽刺，嘲弄，反话 （adj.sarcastic） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
fuming
|
|
| 愤怒( fume的现在分词 )； 大怒； 发怒； 冒烟 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
unimpeachable
|
|
| adj.无可指责的；adv.无可怀疑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |