A full and detailed15 indictment16 of the clergy would fill several columns, and I must confine myself here to two or three considerations which are at once sufficiently17 drastic and easily demonstrable. I will therefore be content to show:
1. That the clergy claim and receive a large measure of public confidence on the ground that they are the guardians18 of the most sacred and beneficent truths, yet impose on the less educated masses a preposterous19 collection of untruths, or statements which many of their own scholars, and most lay scholars, regard as untrue.
2. That the clergy pose as the most sensitive and effective custodians20 of our morals, yet their procedure is unjust, spiteful, and deceptive21 to an extent which would not be tolerated in any lay profession.
3. That the clergy represent that their creed22 civilised Europe and is necessary for the maintenance of its civilisation23, yet their influence and their ideas retarded24 the evolution of European civilisation for centuries, and retard25 it to-day wherever they have sufficient power or are immune from weighty criticism.
In enumerating26 the untruths which are still imposed by the clergy, I will not linger over the Old Testament27. When you censure28 them to-day for attaching a sacred value to this collection of ancient Jewish literature, they are apt to reply that your criticism is forty years out of date. Every educated clergyman, they exclaim, now acknowledges that the Old Testament is a mixture of Babylonian legends, primitive29 tribal30 traditions, and moral literature of a naïve and very interesting description. Whether this statement is true or no I must leave to the judgment31 of those who have a closer acquaintance with the modern clergy. Only two years ago I was persuaded, in an idle hour on a liner, to listen to a sermon delivered by a young clergyman who had just issued, with honours, from a highly modern Wesleyan college. It was on the miracles of Moses in the wilderness—ingeniously relieved by references to such other miracles as the appearance of a cross to Constantine—and accepted them as literally32 as did Peter the Hermit33. Religious periodicals and books and parish-magazines suggest that there is a good deal still of this medieval credulity; or that, at least, the number of “educated clergymen” must be somewhat restricted. But let us accept the assurance that the educated clergy do accept the Old Testament at its true historical value. In which case we must be content to express our surprise that no clergyman seems to have the least scruple34 about imposing35 these things on young children, and rustic36 congregations, and less cultivated races—than which there is no more cowardly form of untruth: and that some of the most notoriously unreliable and barbaric pages of the Old Testament are read, Sunday by Sunday, as “the word of God” in all the Christian39 Churches of the world, under the official orders of every ecclesiastical authority in the world.
However, since these cultivated ecclesiastics40 smile at our criticism of the Old Testament, and see nothing improper41 in a deception42 of the ignorant, of which any body of professional laymen43 would be incapable44, let us turn to the New Testament. It is always useful to consider the attitude of the clergy in its historical perspective. A hundred years ago they were defending against the Deists the absolute truthfulness45 of the Old Testament. Christ had promised the Holy Spirit to the Church: the Holy Spirit could not possibly tolerate untruth: therefore the teaching of the Church for sixteen centuries must be right. Within two generations they have, in a great number, abandoned the inerrancy of the Old Testament, without abandoning the Holy Spirit. It seems only the other day when Cardinal46 Newman pleaded wistfully that we were not compelled, under pain of eternal damnation, to believe that Tobit’s dog did really wag its tail. However, outside Scotland clergymen do seem to be free to form their own opinions on such allegations as that a whale swallowed a man and housed him for three days. But in thus admitting that “inspiration” was consistent with error, they have put the New Testament also in the hand of the critic.
It is well to remember, too, that this modern criticism of the Bible is conducted almost entirely48 by divines. The average churchgoer has an impression that these terrible people who are known as “the Higher Critics” are anti-clerical laymen: possibly lascivious49 gentlemen whose real ambition is to undermine the salutary discipline imposed by the Churches. They are, of course, on the contrary, nearly all ordained50 clergymen, and very conscientious51 clergymen, of some branch of the Church. Rationalists never criticise52 the Bible. It has become a branch of theological scholarship. I once—having been challenged by the local clergyman, who promptly53 disappeared when I arrived—gave a lecture on the divinity of Christ to an audience of Presbyterian artisans, and assured them that the views and arguments I put before them were taken solely54 from the works of distinguished55 and highly honoured theologians. Their amazement56 and horror were most amusing. They had not the dimmest idea that controversy57 on these points lay merely between advanced and not-advanced members of the Christian clergy; and that their local oracle59 had, in effect, merely been imposing on them the opinions of the less learned divines in opposition60 to the more learned.
And this fact dispenses61 me from the need to drag the reader into the somewhat tiring labyrinth62 of proof and disproof which these warring theologians have constructed. Nothing could be further from my mind than the presumptuous63 and immodest wish to brand the clergy as dishonest, and their beliefs as superstitious64, because I happen to regard those beliefs as false. Let the position be clearly understood. A study of the Hibbert Journal or any scholarly theological periodical, or of any batch65 of learned theological works, will apprise66 any person that what are ordinarily conceived to be the fundamental positions of the Christian religion are challenged by a large proportion of distinguished divines. Pleas of “reconstruction” are constantly put before us; and at the Church of England Congress in 1912 it was plainly decided67 by the presiding Archbishop of York that the “advanced” theologians had a legitimate68 place in the Church. It is not a question of a few controverted69 points in the scheme of Christian doctrine70. No point that is specifically Christian is left unchallenged. The divinity and miracles—especially the miraculous71 birth and resurrection—of Christ, the prophecies, the doctrine of heaven and hell, the divine guidance of the Church, the fall and redemption of man—all these characteristic doctrines72 are gravely disputed within the frontiers of the Churches themselves, wherever freedom of expression is permitted.
One would prefer to rely on theologians only in such a matter, but for my purpose it is not immaterial to add that outside the ranks of the clergy scholarship is overwhelmingly against these doctrines. There has been a good deal of unsubstantial talk about the beliefs of living men of intellectual eminence73, but resolute74 efforts have been made of late years to wring75 from them a profession of Christian belief, and the result has been so meagre that my statement is fully47 justified76. A large number declare that they are on the side of “religion.” But one has only to reflect that even Sir Oliver Lodge77 warmly professes78 to be a Christian—and is, in fact, welcomed to read the lessons in church—to see how little is conveyed by such expressions. The supreme79 effort of the Churches to secure adhesions of this kind is probably found in Mr. Tabrum’s Religious Beliefs of Scientists (1910), and a study of that extraordinary jumble80 of the living and the dead, the distinguished and the obscure, the really believing Christians81 and the men who are notoriously not, will convince any person of the failure of the Churches to obtain the literal adhesion of even a respectable proportion of our distinguished men: not men of science merely—it is a stupid error to suppose that the decay of faith is more or less confined to them—but men of eminence in any department of research or intellectual life. Not one in ten of them, in any educated country of the Christian world to-day, has ever professed82 a belief in the doctrines or statements I have enumerated83; and vague professions of a regard for religion do not concern me here.
Now I am, as I said, not passing any personal opinion on these Christian teachings: I am merely drawing attention to their position in modern life. The uncultivated masses and the body of the clergy who preach to these masses accept the miraculous birth, death, resurrection, and all the rest, quite implicitly84. Here and there one finds a preacher who dissents86; I am speaking of the mass. At the middle level of mental culture, among both clergy and laity87, dissent85 becomes much more frequent. At the highest level of theological scholarship it would be fair to say that the dissenters88 are almost, if not quite, as numerous as the believers; and at the higher level of lay culture, where opinions may be more freely formed and expressed, the dissenters are the overwhelming majority. These men may be theists or agnostics or Christians in the broader sense of the word, but the great majority of them do not believe in these distinctively89 Christian doctrines. Yet the Churches, wherever they are not kept in check by this critical element, invest these doctrines with the most sacred and confident character: stamp them as unquestioned truths on the minds of children and uneducated people, and put them forward as their official and authoritative90 doctrines. Nay91, there is hardly a theologian in any church who does not, when Christmas and Easter annually92 occur, lend his official and most solemn countenance93 to these discarded or disputed traditions.
This would not, could not, be done in any branch of lay culture. One may justly insist on one’s opinion in any disputed theme, but what would be the attitude of our leaders of culture if any authoritative historian, philosopher, or scientist attempted to impose on the inexpert, as an unquestioned truth, some older opinion which a large proportion of the expert regarded as false or questionable94? What would they say to a responsible teacher in one of these branches of lay culture who read certain statements to those who trusted him, and said within his own mind: “This is what people thought a thousand years ago”? A clergyman told me that it was with this mental reservation that he read the creeds95 and gospels on Sundays. What would a philosopher, or historian, or scientist say, if his department of culture were an organic association with a public and authoritative teaching, and this public teaching contained statements which a large proportion of the leading representatives regarded as false? And what would he say to any colleagues who urged him to allow these things to stand because a change might lessen96 the respect of the general public for their authority?
This situation reflects gravely on the character of Christian ministers. One need not attempt the futile97 task of estimating what proportion of the clergy believe the things they teach, but we are constantly receiving proof, especially posthumous98 proof, that large numbers of them do not. I have been severely99 rebuked100 for suggesting such a thing, but when I find a group of young Oxford101 divines saying plumply, in an important recent work (Foundations), that Christian theology is “out of harmony with science, philosophy, and scholarship,” I can only say that I trust a sufficient number of the clergy are educated enough to know it. The majority of the clergy are, however, sufficiently ignorant of “science, philosophy, and scholarship” to be in good faith, and one ought not to press the indictment in this sense. At sea I listen occasionally, from some safe distance, to sermons, and am amazed that even a fair proportion of the passengers can sit with grave faces during the delivery of such empty and ignorant vapourings. One reflects that all over the Christian world priests are similarly dogmatising on the most profound problems of life, and not one in a thousand of them has an elementary knowledge of those branches of modern research which a public guide ought to command. It is not the decay, but the survival, of churchgoing that perplexes one.
There is, however, another aspect of the matter which requires serious attention. There have been, from the earliest ages of the Christian Church, men of superior intelligence and independent character who refused to submit to the dictation of the clergy. There is no need to recall how the clergy dealt with them. Christian ministers have in this regard the most abominable102 record in the whole history of civilised religion. Some day it will be put side by side with that of the priests of Saturn103 or of Quetzalcotl, who offered human sacrifices. All that need be noted104 here is the effrontery105 with which modern clerical writers defend their predecessors106. If the principles on which they base their defence are valid107, they would again be compelled to burn heretics if they obtained power. The Church of Rome is bold enough to acknowledge this. Huxley tells how his distinguished Catholic friend, Dr. J. Ward38, warmly assented108 to this, but we have had since then a more authoritative indication. A work of Canon Law which was published at Rome under the “enlightened” rule of Leo XIII., and with his emphatic109 personal approval—the Institutiones Juris Canonici of Father de Luca—proves at length the duty of the Church to put to death heretics.
However, we will not waste rhetoric110 over the past or over an impossible future. What policy have the modern clergy, who are unable to induce the State to burn dissenters, substituted for that of their predecessors? A policy that is, to a very great extent, unjust, spiteful, and dishonourable: a policy that, in the very name of truth, is marked by a more flagrant indifference111 to truth than you will find in any other reputable department of modern life.
The first feature of this policy will be seen by any generally informed person who will take the trouble to read a batch of religious works or periodicals. He will find numbers of statements of the most amazing inaccuracy. It is, no doubt, an exceptional thing for a clerical writer to make a statement which is, to his conscious knowledge, untrue. The very suggestion seems prejudiced, but is there a vast difference between imposing official untruths on ignorant congregations and supporting these untruths by others? The constant repetition of these ancient and discredited112 formulæ does not induce a very punctilious113 temper in regard to truth. If it is quite lawful114 to repeat from the Old or the New Testament historical statements which are not true or are gravely disputed, why not other historical statements which have got into ecclesiastical currency?
Usually, however, the attitude of the writer seems to be one of culpable115 indifference to the truth or untruth of the statements he makes. He finds in some previous writer a statement which supports his case, and he reproduces it without inquiry116. If he were a mere58 layman117, engaged in some branch of profane118 culture, he would not dare to repeat, without further inquiry, statements which he found made in his own sectarian interest by men of no high authority or original scholarship. The clergy, however, do this habitually119, and one is compelled to conclude that they are more or less indifferent about the truth of their assertions, if those assertions are favourable120 to religion. Just as I write the press reports Dr. R. F. Horton telling a congregation that a British regiment121 was saved at Mons by the appearance of a legion of angels, and assuring his audience that this silly myth is “repeated by so many witnesses that if anything can be established by contemporary evidence it is established.” The story has gone the round of our pulpits and religious press.
I am speaking, however, from a particularly wide experience of religious literature. For thirty years—ten years as a clerical student or professor, and twenty years as an interested observer of religious controversy—I have devoted122 much time to books and journals of this kind, and I repeat that there is no other branch of literature so flagrantly inaccurate123 and unscrupulous. A religious periodical (The Christian World, 20th August 1903), in the course of an editorial on “Candour in the Pulpit” (meaning lack of candour in the pulpit), said: “A foremost modern theologian, by no means of the radical124 school, has recorded his significant judgment that one of the main characteristics of apologetic literature is its lack of honesty; and no one who has studied theology can doubt that it has suffered more than any other science from equivocal phraseology.” When a journal which has to consult the feelings of a large backward clientele uses this language, we may conclude that the situation is really bad. In fact, not even political journalism125 betrays such gross carelessness as to the truth of the statements with which it assails126 its opponents. “The more sacred our ideas are, the more savagely127 we fight for them,” said Mr. Chesterton, defending the Inquisition. Mr. Chesterton’s own genial129 method (except that one recognises the taint130 in his Victorian Age in Literature) disproves his aphorism131. There is not the slightest excuse for the gross procedure of religious writers.
I have in various works and articles given hundreds of examples of this procedure, and will be content to deal summarily with two of the chief types of misrepresentation—those relating to history and those relating to science. The classical examples in history are the clerical legends about the morality of the pagans. Here the clerical lie goes on its way from age to age without the slightest regard of the progress of historical research. Discoveries in the ruins (such as the Hammurabi Code, temple-literature, etc.) and a closer scrutiny132 of the sources used by the Greek historian Herodotus have made it quite clear that the old Mesopotamian civilisations were comparable to ours in moral sentiment and practice. Instead of women having to sacrifice their virginity in the temples at Babylon, we have abundant evidence that chastity was demanded and valued in brides, and that the priests insisted on purity. Every other moral sentiment was equally developed. We find the same high moral development in Egypt. All this is disregarded, and the superiority of the Hebrew and Christian sacred books is maintained by a resolute propagation of ancient fables133.
In regard to Greece and Rome the practice is even worse. The exceptional features of their life are described as normal and general features, and the very abundant literature which has put in its true light the character of Athens and Rome is completely ignored. Special periods of vice134 under bad emperors (who, in the aggregate135, ruled only seventy years out of three hundred and twenty) are spread over the whole of Roman history. The gossip and democratic rhetoric of Juvenal are pressed literally, in spite of the judgment of all serious historians. The works which exhibit the better side of Rome, and the inscriptions136 which show a very high degree of character and humanitarianism137 under the Stoics139, are wholly suppressed. The balanced verdict of modern historians is scandalously flouted140. At all costs it must be shown that Europe needed regeneration, and that Christian morality was far superior to pagan; and so the clergy continue, in spite of protests from some of their own lay scholars (Emil Reich, for instance), to draw a flagrantly untruthful picture of the morals of Greece and Rome.
But this misrepresentation is venial141 in comparison with the misrepresentation of later European history. The clerical story of the moral change that came over Europe when it embraced Christianity is one of the grossest impostures ever laid on the human mind. Even clerics like Dean Milman sufficiently refuted it decades ago, but it flourishes as profitably as ever. From the pulpit of St. Paul’s to the tin chapels142 of Mudville it is one of the most treasured traditions, and perhaps no picture is more familiar to Christian audiences than that of Rome, drunk with its vices143, reeling to the foot of the cross and embracing sobriety. It is a calculated clerical myth in every line. The Stoics reformed Rome at a time when the Christians were a mere handful of obscure people, and the magnificent work done and institutions set up by the Stoics were not sustained by the Church. Even in regard to the persecutions the clergy still repeat the legend which modern historians recognise as based on a mass of medieval forgeries145. Civilisation sank rapidly until it touched the depth of the early Middle Ages, and, as Milman candidly147 recognised, the claim that at least virtue148 increased is the reverse of the truth. The Church did not denounce or abolish slavery: it discouraged education: it abased149 woman: it set back a thousand years the development of culture. Yet our clerical writers repeat the medieval falsehoods as fluently as if modern history did not exist.
The later period is just as grossly falsified by Catholic writers, but here the Protestant—who has somehow convinced himself that the Holy Spirit abandoned Europe to the devil for a thousand years—begins to cry for candour. Much of the Protestant literature is uncritical and unscrupulous in its use of authorities; it is, however, instructive in comparison with the kind of history purveyed150 by the “Catholic Truth Society.” There is hardly a candid146 historian in the Church, even in Germany and the United States. The latest historian of the Papacy, Dr. L. Pastor151, is certainly entitled to respect for his effort, though even he does not present all the facts; while men like Cardinal Gasquet are appallingly153 one-sided. I am, however, thinking mainly of the “popular” literature, on which no stricture could be too severe. Indeed, when it comes to the modern period, both Protestant and Catholic literature is scandalous. One often finds Voltaire, Rousseau, and Paine described as “atheists,” and the most slovenly154 observations on the Revolution. Roosevelt’s description of Paine as a “dirty little atheist” is a good indication of the kind of literature that even an educated religious man may read.
On the scientific side the inaccuracy and carelessness are just as great, but the field is too vast for consideration here. The conflict in regard to evolution has produced an extraordinary literature on the clerical side, and, to the amusement of students of science, it still flows from the religious press and refreshes suburban155 faith. Men who have never devoted a month to the study of science engage in conflict with the most authoritative masters of biology, and thrill their ignorant followers156 with the vigour157 and dexterity158 of their fencing. These Jesuit and other writers have, of course, set up a lay-figure for their valiant159 attacks. They misrepresent the views and motives160 of the man they oppose, give garbled161 quotations162 from his works, and support their own antiquated163 positions by quotations from scientific men who lived in the earlier phases of the controversy. No trick is more common in this class of literature than to justify164 obsolete165 statements by quoting “authorities” who died long ago, and leaving the inexpert reader to suppose that they are modern men of science; while clerics who could not distinguish a palæolithic from a civilised skull166 write pompous167 essays on such subjects as the evolution of man. Works of this kind circulate by the hundred in the churches even to-day, literally deluding168 millions of people, while the works of more expert writers are denounced as “against religion” and unfit to read.
Still more flagrant is the clerical behaviour in rebutting169 the general belief that men of science have for the most part abandoned Christianity. They—with the support of a man like Sir O. Lodge—talk glibly170 of the death of “Victorian materialism171” and the rebirth of spiritualism; whereas Huxley, Tyndall, Spencer, Darwin, Clifford, Lewes, and every other Victorian man of science repudiated173 materialism. When you ask who the modern men are who have abandoned the views of the Huxleian generation and come to favour religion, they produce an extraordinarily174 confused list of names. I have referred to their magnum opus in this department, Tabrum’s Religious Beliefs of Scientists. It actually includes two prominent members of the Rationalist Press Association; while men like Lodge and Wallace and Crookes are included among the more orthodox. Of late years it is the fashion to impress ignorant congregations with the names of W. James, Eucken, and Bergson; whereas James and Bergson are not even theists, and Eucken professes a form of theism which any Church would heatedly repudiate172. The members of the various sects175 are literally and most scandalously duped on this point.
I have claimed that the clergy are spiteful and unjust, as well as careless about truth. There are very few popular religious writers who seem capable of giving a correct account of the views they are criticising, and there are very many who manipulate quotations with the effect of grossly deceiving their readers. Worse still, the clergy habitually slander176 their critics, and these slanders177 live for years in spite of refutation. Seven years ago they began to circulate a silly and obviously incredible charge that Professor Haeckel “forged” illustrations in support of his case, and, though the libel was at once thoroughly178 refuted by Professor Schmidt, it is still current. Only a few months ago I received from India documents which showed that the Jesuits there were still insisting on it. A friend of mine informed me that he heard one Scottish preacher, in the course of a public lecture on Haeckel, assure his audience, on the authority of a “friend of Haeckel’s,” that that venerable scientist was a man of most licentious179 life! No charge is too gross to repeat, if it discredits180 an “enemy of the faith.” Dozens of times I have heard of the wildest calumnies181 about myself which circulate throughout the English-speaking world, because I have occasionally written a critical work (always grossly misrepresented in the Catholic press) about the Catholic Church. I never belonged to the Catholic priesthood: I was discharged from it for fraud: I left it in order to marry a nun182 I had seduced183: and so on. Only the lighter184 of these things are put in print, and then always with the name omitted. Only a few months ago a priest (and Education-Councillor) in a Scottish town gravely assured a schoolmistress, in the presence of an acquaintance of mine, that his Church held unshakable proofs of my vicious ways. As usual, my request that they would say so in print was ignored. Most ex-priests have the same experience. One of the most refined and religious of these seceders, a man who became a most respected professor at Oxford, was pursued by the calumny185 (never printed) that he had shown indecent photographs to servant-girls!
This tactic186 of the Church militant187 is happily so notorious that little harm is done among the general public, but Catholics are gravely deluded188, in the hope that they will be induced to refrain from reading any except their own mendacious189 literature.
Yet one of the most familiar themes of the men who pursue this tactic is that they alone can inspire high character! Notoriously insincere in their professions, teachers of doctrines which the higher culture of our time and many of their own leading scholars condemn190, living in an atmosphere of untruth and unreality, relying on a literature which is generally as indifferent to truth as it is to grace, unscrupulously repeating idle slanders of their opponents, they ask us to believe that they are genuinely concerned about the future of society if we continue to reject their authority. It is not strange that the great cities of the modern world are unmoved by their dirges191.
The third point of my indictment is that the clergy have forged the historical credentials192 by which they lay claim to our respect. I have already observed that their version of the history of Europe is peculiar193 to their own literature, and I have elsewhere (The Bible in Europe) shown in detail how worthless it is. The “conversion” of Europe to Christianity in the fourth century was, as every historian of the period shows, an enforcement of the new religion on Europe by imperial authority, accompanied by the most violent and bloody194 repression195 of all other religions. We then have the witness of contemporary Christian writers that this “conversion” was followed by a general moral and intellectual decline. The great reforms which Rome had inaugurated were destroyed, and Europe sank into the ignorance, superstition196, and grossness of the Middle Ages. It is quite true that the triumph of Christianity coincided with the overthrow197 of civilisation by the northern tribes, but the Teutonic tribes were not inferior to the Arabs or Turks (whom Mohammedanism civilised in the course of a century or two), and the Church soon obtained despotic power over them. The Eastern Empire, I may add, was not dominated by the barbarians198, yet it also suffered a grave moral and intellectual decline. The fact is, that the clergy made no effort to induce the barbarians to restore the old school-system, to reconstruct the Roman law, to free the slaves (and, later, the serfs), to adjust their high native ideal of womanhood to the new social order, or to rebuild the fine civic199 and philanthropic system of the Romans. Culture fell so low that the very promising200 germs of later Greek science were allowed to die, and nearly the whole of the surviving Greek literature was unknown in Europe for many centuries. The trade in spurious relics201, the rapacity202 and unscrupulousness of the Papacy, the coarseness of the nobles and people, and the general sexual licence of priests and monks203 were almost incredible.
This dark age began to receive the first rays of new light in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and historians are agreed that the new light came from the civilisation of the Spanish Moors204. This it was that, by introducing Greek literature and its Arab commentators205, led to the early revival206 of science. But the cult37 of the grossest relics and superstitions207 continued, and the clergy repressed, or inspired rulers to repress, all dissent with more ferocity than ever. During the one general persecution144 of the early Christians by the Romans about two thousand had suffered for the faith; and only a few hundreds can be added from the earlier sporadic208 persecutions. But within fifty years of the establishment of Christianity in the Empire, tens of thousands of Donatists, Manichæans, Arians, Pagans, etc., were done to death, and hundreds of thousands ruined or maltreated, by the triumphant209 Christians. In later centuries it was the turn of Monophysites, Monothelites, etc., and in the first quarter of the thirteenth century alone more than a million heretics were done to death in Languedoc. If the Jews and witches and others who suffered on religious grounds be added, the “butcher’s bill” of the new religion passes ten millions; and beyond these are the countless210 millions of those who suffered something less than death.
We look back to-day with feelings of horror on this ghastly carnage, especially when we remember the absurd character of the doctrines which the heretics assailed211 and the immorality212 of the clergy and monks who were primarily responsible for the executions and massacres214. But this savage128 repression of independent thought had consequences of an even more disastrous215 nature on European civilisation. It not only removed from the community many of the more courageous216 and more intelligent stocks, but it intimidated217 others from using their powers, except in the futile argumentation of the Schoolmen. The result was a prolonged suspension of the development of the higher culture which was destined218 to give Europe its supremacy219. It will hardly be doubted to-day that this culture was contained in the scientific works of the Greeks, especially the Alexandrian Greeks. The Arabs brought this culture to Spain, and, chiefly through the mediation220 of the Jews, it was slowly introduced into Europe and inspired such scholars as Gilbert, Roger Bacon, Albert the Great, and Copernicus. Physics, chemistry, and medicine began their development. But the fate of Roger Bacon and Albert and Vesalius sufficiently reminds us of the Church’s attitude toward the new culture, and the story of the hampering221 of intellectual progress in the exact study of nature has been repeatedly told. The scholastic222 fever, which had absorbed the energies of most of the acutest minds in Europe, had to disappear, and the power of the Church to be enfeebled, before the civilisation of Europe could advance.
The further introduction of Greek literature, when the Turks drove the Greeks from Constantinople, the invention of printing, the expansion of commerce and navigation, and the weakening of Church-authority by the Reformation, opened the modern phase of the development of European civilisation. It is only for the last of these changes that a section of the clergy may plausibly223 claim our gratitude224, and even here we must make reserves. The share of the laity in the Reformation was greater than the share of the clergy, and the aim of the Reformed clergy was by no means to free and stimulate225 the intelligence of Europe. They frowned on lay culture, and burned their opponents, as inhumanly226 as the Roman priests did. It was not until the growth of sects had further enfeebled ecclesiastical authority, and a large body of lay scholars had arisen, that Europe became civilised, even in a generous sense of the word. Then science and philosophy and history grew to the proportions which distinguish “modern times,” and a resolute social and humanitarian138 movement began to remove those appalling152 injustices228 of the industrial and political order which the clergy had witnessed in silence for more than a thousand years.
I repeat that this is not an eccentric view of the development of European civilisation, but the view taken by historians ever since their science was emancipated229 from clerical control. The view which the clergy still sedulously230 propagate, that the Christian religion inspired the civilisation of Europe, is the most preposterous historical sham13 which we still entertain. It is unintelligible231 how a scholar like Mr. Bryce can give even a qualified232 support to it. In the minds of most people it is a pitiful confusion of ideas associated with one of the most elementary fallacies known to the logician233. The fallacy is the syllogism234 which suffices for the majority of the faithful: Europe is the great centre of civilisation, Europe was Christian during the development of this civilisation, therefore Christianity was the inspirer of the civilisation. The inference is foolish enough in itself, but it becomes ludicrous when we reflect on the facts. Europe was civilised before it became Christian; it inherited all the best culture and experience of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, Greece, and Rome. But Europe lost its civilisation when it became Christian, very largely because the new religion found culture dangerous to its superstitions and repressed it. And Europe owes its return to civilisation to the revival of pagan ideas, and it advances in civilisation in proportion as it discards Christianity.
The confusion of ideas is just as foolish as the fallacy. Europe is “great” in two very different senses. Most of the white nations are “great” in the vastness of their territory and the wealth they have derived235 from subject peoples. To connect this form of greatness with the Sermon on the Mount is audacious: it is a practice which really belongs to the age when English merchants who waxed fat on the negro-slave trade could complacently236 give the name “Jesus” to their vessels237. This form of greatness frankly238 rested on buccaneering. Europe is great also in intellectual development, with the scientific and technical achievements to which this has led. We need not ask what particular Christian sentiment has inspired this; we know too well the share the clergy have had in repressing it.
Lastly, Europe is great in the cultivation239 of humane240 sentiment and the endeavour to practise social justice. It is here that the clergy usually claim their usefulness; and there is hardly a bolder mis-statement in their literature than this. The New Testament contains not a single moral sentiment that was unknown to the Greeks and Romans, and to the later Jews: the moral sentiments of the New Testament are so vague and elementary that not a single priest denounced slavery for nine hundred years, and not a Church has denounced war for more than eighteen hundred years: the Christian ethic241 was so uninspiring that Europe reeked242 with vice and crime and war and social injustice227 until the end of the eighteenth or beginning of the nineteenth century: when the reform began, in the nineteenth century, hardly a single priest aided it (until it had won millions of adherents), and the bishops243 almost unanimously opposed it: and the humanitarianism of modern times is an almost exclusively lay movement, gaining power and fervour in proportion as we sweep the clergy aside. Europe was civilised under the Roman and Greek pagans, and it is civilised, in the same broad sense, under the modern pagans; it was not civilised in the intervening period, and the worst features of its life to-day are, not recent outgrowths, but inheritances from the Christian past.
The pleas which some of the clergy, who know a little history, urge against this plain generalisation of the historical facts are curious. The majority, of course, knowing nothing of history, repeat the conventional untruths, but a few would tell us that this modern humanitarianism is due to a belated appreciation244 of the Christian ethic. Are justice, sympathy, truthfulness, kindness, and honour confined to the Christian ethic? Was there ever a great moralist, or a mature civilisation, which failed to appreciate them? Is not the modern humanitarian movement plainly characterised by a determination to do good to men, not for a reward in heaven or because Christ (like so many others) enjoined245 it, but because you cannot have a fine mind and character without experiencing this determination? Were there, in the fifteen hundred years of Christian domination, not enough men with intelligence enough to perceive the practical bearing of Christ’s ethic? Have these clerical writers frankly abandoned the claim that the “Spirit of God” guided their predecessors during those fifteen centuries? And have they read a line of the modern literature which shows that there is not one humane sentiment in the Gospels that was not well known to the Jews before the time of Christ?
The case of the clergy is a tissue of sophistry246 and untruth from beginning to end. They have done nothing as a body for European civilisation, in proportion to their power and leisure and resources. They did not even teach it chastity. They hindered the development of the culture which it vitally needed, and dissipated its finest intelligence in the tilling of barren soil. They fought fiercely for their own wealth and power, and were for fifteen hundred years a mighty247 parasitic248 growth on the working community. They kept the bandage of illiteracy249 on the eyes of ninety per cent. of their people for fifteen hundred years, and dined merrily with the nobles who exploited the people. They exacted respect in virtue of their supposed close communion with an all-holy God; and they were themselves, especially in their highest representatives, immoral213 and hypocritical in an appalling proportion, were brutal250 in coercing251 their critics, were traffickers in spurious and sordid252 relics, and were, when noble men and women at last won liberty from them, ignorant, slanderous253, and careless of truth as no reputable body of laymen would stoop to become. Their record is as poor as their opportunity was great, and the modern world is, in strict proportion to the growth of education, passing disdainfully by the open doors of their churches. Of the twelve million inhabitants of the three greatest cities of Europe hardly two millions attend church; and if it were not for the incessant254, feverish255, and highly organised efforts of the clergy themselves, churchgoing would show a further rapid and enormous shrinkage. Yet even in this last phase we find them mumbling256 to ill-instructed congregations about their glorious record in Europe (crowned by a war of four hundred million people), about the wickedness of an age which prefers the indulgence of its passions to their serene257 guidance, and about the terrible doom258 which they foresee for Europe if it does not return to its medieval guardians.
As I observed in dealing259 with the political organisation260, Christianity is not a set of ideas but a wealthy and powerful corporation. Once it was a body of men holding certain beliefs: now it is, in essence, an organisation for the enforcement of those beliefs. It is, in the main, this professional or corporate261 interest which sustains Christianity in Europe: but it is losing heavily. I have shown (Decay of the Church of Rome) that the oldest branch of the Church has lost about a hundred million followers in a hundred years. I do not think that the Protestant Churches, being more progressive and less offensive in their tactics, have lost so heavily, but the extraordinary decay of churchgoing in cities like Berlin, London, and New York is suggestive. In spite of all the tricks and devices of the clergy—the vestments and concerts, the matrimonial agencies and philanthropic coercion262, the Y.M.C.A.’s and P.S.A.’s and all the rest—the people still fall away. No proof could be formulated263 to-day that even the majority of the people of Europe are Christians.
The thoughtful minority in the religious world are retreating upon the liberal theism which so many of our cultural leaders profess5, or upon some even more vague mysticism. Into this further province it is not my intention to go. The world will, no doubt, long remain divided in opinion, or in sentiment, on fundamental religious issues, and for my practical purpose this difference is of no account. There is, however, one last consideration put forward by the clergy which it may be useful to consider.
It is represented that we are in danger of a triumph of “materialism,” and it is therefore wise to cling, in spite of their errors, to the Churches which so solidly represent “spiritualism.” Since many people have regarded me as peculiarly exposed to this danger of falling under the evil spell of “materialism,” I have made eager inquiries264 among spiritualist writers as to the nature of “spirit.” I am still hopefully inquiring. Most of the anæmic mystics who gush265 over the word cannot tell you what it means. They have a vague conviction that the spiritual is immensely more important and productive of good than the material, and that therefore materialism is the most appalling blight266 that can fall on a nation. These prophets of evil are, as I have previously267 observed, not strong in history. They do not explain how Confucianism (which Sir Edwin Arnold, accurately268 enough, calls materialism) proved so great an inspiration in China and Japan: how the Stoics (who refused utterly269 to believe in spirit) wrought270 so much good and inspired so fine a character at Rome: or how this materialistic271 age of ours is so idealistic. They know only that we must at all costs cultivate the spiritual—read spiritual writers, respect spiritual persons, encourage spiritual clergymen and artists and actors—and loathe272 materialism from the bottom of our hearts. And it is therefore quite natural to suppose that all that is precious in life and progress depends on the belief in the existence of “spirits.”
In point of fact, we have here entangled273 ourselves in an extraordinary confusion. The cultivation of intelligence, fine sentiment, and straight character has nothing whatever to do with the question whether the mind of man is or is not divisible into parts, or has or has not “inertia274”: which are the only philosophic276 distinctions between matter and spirit that I have discovered. The tradition of the spirituality of the mind is responsible for this confusion. If the mind is a spirit, then spirit is assuredly the source of the finest things in life, and is far superior to matter. But that is just the question at issue; and it really does not matter two pins for practical purposes whether the mind is extended and inert275 (in the scientific sense), or unextended and devoid277 of inertia. One has only to substitute clear conceptions for vague terms, and the whole controversy is reduced to absurdity278. Whichever side wins in the academic battle about the nature of mind, it remains279 as true as ever that the cultivation of mind is one of the most important aims that men can set up. Why on earth should we be less disposed to cultivate the mind of the race if some sudden turn of scientific advance were to prove it “a function of the brain”? It remains true that our race owes the position it occupies entirely to mind: that our civilisation owes its ascendancy280 over barbarism to mind: and that we rely entirely on the further cultivation of mind—of intelligence, will, and emotion—to destroy those shams which impede281 our progress and curtail282 our prosperity and happiness. It is ludicrous to say that we cannot thus cultivate mind unless we believe it to be an indivisible and incomprehensible and indefinable something. It would, in fact, be less absurd to say that we should have more confidence in our power to cultivate mind if we regarded it as an organic function, subject to definite treatment.
As to the lapse283 of a belief in personal immortality284, it is not less absurd to say that this would paralyse our efforts. As Ruskin says on the point: “The shortness of life is not, to any rational person, a conclusive285 reason for wasting the space of it which may be granted him.” That magnificent preface to The Crown of Wild Olive ought long ago to have silenced these dismal286 sophists. The fact is, that this age of ours, in proportion as it grows indifferent to the old legends and the appeals of the clergy, rises toward heights which man never climbed before. The clergy are most amusingly puzzled. Popes tell us that we are children of perdition, reeling into an earthly abyss, to say nothing of a deeper beyond: archbishops say that we are just beginning to realise the true import of Christ’s teaching. The candid man or woman will look searchingly for himself or herself into the heart of our age, and, if he or she have an accurate knowledge of earlier ages, will recognise that it throbs287 with a human idealism, tenderness, and sympathy which have been unknown in Europe since the old pagans departed.
Let me end on that note. The religious person will close this work, if he perseveres288 to the end, with a series of horrified289 exclamations290. Socialism! Immoralism! Republicanism! Materialism! Malthusianism! I shudder291 under the shower of horrid292 epithets293, yet would ask this outraged294 reader to forget “’isms” for a moment and consider a simple statement of the human faith I here present.
The ideals which I hold in supreme regard are truth in our beliefs and statements, justice and generosity295 in our actions, the co-operation of all men to make the earth happier. I am in temperament296 no hedonist. Thirty years of assiduous study, of much severe trial, of stoical endurance have left me more or less insensible to what men and women usually call happiness. My personal desires are sated in that I may, in circumstances of peace and modest comfort, devote myself to intellectual labour and the employment in the cause of progress of such influence as I have. I see no purpose imposed on life, and I therefore conclude that men and women are free to put such purpose on their collective life as they deem advisable. No purpose seems to be wiser, grander, or more inspiring than that they should seek to assuage297 the last pang298 of remediable pain and bring sunshine into the dark places of the earth. For me there is no heaven; and therefore the spectacle of those thousands passing daily and nightly into the silence, after lives of pain, misery299, or brutality300, while we cling to the barbaric traditions or ill-devised institutions that have come down to us, is an intolerable goad301. Let us have criticism and scrutiny of all that we do and all that we believe; and let us have courage to reject all that we think false and purify all that we find corrupted302. Let us assert that mighty power of which we are conscious; and, if it take ages to undo303 all the errors of the past and agree upon a plan of a regenerated304 earth, let us at least strive to awaken305 men to a consciousness of their power and of the evils they have to remove. These are my suggestions of what is wrong in life and how it may be righted. It may be materialism, this plain human gospel of mine; but it seems to me that, if it could be carried into effect, there would spread gradually over this earth such joy and freedom and prosperity as men’s prophets have babbled306 of in their dying dreams.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
assailing
|
|
| v.攻击( assail的现在分词 )；困扰；质问；毅然应对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
cursory
|
|
| adj.粗略的；草率的；匆促的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
pertinent
|
|
| adj.恰当的；贴切的；中肯的；有关的；相干的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
antipathy
|
|
| n.憎恶；反感，引起反感的人或事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
profess
|
|
| v.声称，冒称，以...为业，正式接受入教，表明信仰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
mischievous
|
|
| adj.调皮的，恶作剧的，有害的，伤人的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
smothering
|
|
| （使）窒息， （使）透不过气( smother的现在分词 )； 覆盖； 忍住； 抑制 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
clergy
|
|
| n.[总称]牧师，神职人员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
hostility
|
|
| n.敌对，敌意；抵制［pl.］交战，战争 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
esteem
|
|
| n.尊敬，尊重；vt.尊重，敬重；把…看作 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
pretexts
|
|
| n.借口，托辞( pretext的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
shams
|
|
| 假象( sham的名词复数 )； 假货； 虚假的行为（或感情、言语等）； 假装…的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
sham
|
|
| n./adj.假冒(的)，虚伪(的) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
hamper
|
|
| vt.妨碍，束缚，限制；n.(有盖的)大篮子 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
detailed
|
|
| adj.详细的，详尽的，极注意细节的，完全的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
indictment
|
|
| n.起诉；诉状 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
guardians
|
|
| 监护人( guardian的名词复数 )； 保护者，维护者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
preposterous
|
|
| adj.荒谬的，可笑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
custodians
|
|
| n.看守人，保管人( custodian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
deceptive
|
|
| adj.骗人的，造成假象的，靠不住的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
creed
|
|
| n.信条；信念，纲领 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
civilisation
|
|
| n.文明，文化，开化，教化 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
retarded
|
|
| a.智力迟钝的，智力发育迟缓的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
retard
|
|
| n.阻止，延迟；vt.妨碍，延迟，使减速 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
enumerating
|
|
| v.列举，枚举，数( enumerate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
testament
|
|
| n.遗嘱；证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
censure
|
|
| v./n.责备；非难；责难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
primitive
|
|
| adj.原始的；简单的；n.原(始)人，原始事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
tribal
|
|
| adj.部族的，种族的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
literally
|
|
| adv.照字面意义，逐字地；确实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
hermit
|
|
| n.隐士，修道者；隐居 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
scruple
|
|
| n./v.顾忌，迟疑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
imposing
|
|
| adj.使人难忘的，壮丽的，堂皇的，雄伟的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
rustic
|
|
| adj.乡村的，有乡村特色的；n.乡下人，乡巴佬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
cult
|
|
| n.异教，邪教；时尚，狂热的崇拜 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
ward
|
|
| n.守卫，监护，病房，行政区，由监护人或法院保护的人（尤指儿童）；vt.守护，躲开 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
ecclesiastics
|
|
| n.神职者，教会，牧师( ecclesiastic的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
41
improper
|
|
| adj.不适当的，不合适的，不正确的，不合礼仪的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
deception
|
|
| n.欺骗，欺诈；骗局，诡计 | |
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
incapable
|
|
| adj.无能力的，不能做某事的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
truthfulness
|
|
| n. 符合实际 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
cardinal
|
|
| n.(天主教的)红衣主教；adj.首要的，基本的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
lascivious
|
|
| adj.淫荡的，好色的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
ordained
|
|
| v.任命（某人）为牧师( ordain的过去式和过去分词 )；授予（某人）圣职；（上帝、法律等）命令；判定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
conscientious
|
|
| adj.审慎正直的，认真的，本着良心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
criticise
|
|
| v.批评，评论；非难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
promptly
|
|
| adv.及时地，敏捷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
solely
|
|
| adv.仅仅，唯一地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
amazement
|
|
| n.惊奇，惊讶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
controversy
|
|
| n.争论，辩论，争吵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
oracle
|
|
| n.神谕，神谕处，预言 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
dispenses
|
|
| v.分配，分与；分配( dispense的第三人称单数 )；施与；配（药） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
labyrinth
|
|
| n.迷宫；难解的事物；迷路 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
presumptuous
|
|
| adj.胆大妄为的，放肆的，冒昧的，冒失的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
superstitious
|
|
| adj.迷信的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
batch
|
|
| n.一批(组，群)；一批生产量 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
apprise
|
|
| vt.通知，告知 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
legitimate
|
|
| adj.合法的，合理的，合乎逻辑的；v.使合法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
controverted
|
|
| v.争论，反驳，否定( controvert的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
70
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
miraculous
|
|
| adj.像奇迹一样的，不可思议的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
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： |
|
|
|
|
73
eminence
|
|
| n.卓越，显赫；高地，高处；名家 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
resolute
|
|
| adj.坚决的，果敢的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
wring
|
|
| n.扭绞；v.拧，绞出，扭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
justified
|
|
| a.正当的，有理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
lodge
|
|
| v.临时住宿，寄宿，寄存，容纳；n.传达室，小旅馆 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
professes
|
|
| 声称( profess的第三人称单数 )； 宣称； 公开表明； 信奉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
jumble
|
|
| vt.使混乱，混杂；n.混乱；杂乱的一堆 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
Christians
|
|
| n.基督教徒( Christian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
professed
|
|
| 公开声称的，伪称的，已立誓信教的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
enumerated
|
|
| v.列举，枚举，数( enumerate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
implicitly
|
|
| adv. 含蓄地, 暗中地, 毫不保留地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
dissent
|
|
| n./v.不同意，持异议 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
dissents
|
|
| 意见的分歧( dissent的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
laity
|
|
| n.俗人；门外汉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
dissenters
|
|
| n.持异议者，持不同意见者( dissenter的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
distinctively
|
|
| adv.特殊地，区别地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
authoritative
|
|
| adj.有权威的，可相信的；命令式的；官方的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
nay
|
|
| adv.不；n.反对票，投反对票者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
annually
|
|
| adv.一年一次，每年 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
countenance
|
|
| n.脸色，面容；面部表情；vt.支持，赞同 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
questionable
|
|
| adj.可疑的，有问题的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
creeds
|
|
| （尤指宗教）信条，教条( creed的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
lessen
|
|
| vt.减少，减轻；缩小 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
futile
|
|
| adj.无效的，无用的，无希望的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
posthumous
|
|
| adj.遗腹的；父亡后出生的；死后的，身后的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
severely
|
|
| adv.严格地；严厉地；非常恶劣地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
rebuked
|
|
| 责难或指责( rebuke的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
Oxford
|
|
| n.牛津（英国城市） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
abominable
|
|
| adj.可厌的，令人憎恶的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
Saturn
|
|
| n.农神，土星 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
noted
|
|
| adj.著名的，知名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
effrontery
|
|
| n.厚颜无耻 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
predecessors
|
|
| n.前任( predecessor的名词复数 )；前辈；（被取代的）原有事物；前身 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
valid
|
|
| adj.有确实根据的；有效的；正当的，合法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
assented
|
|
| 同意，赞成( assent的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
emphatic
|
|
| adj.强调的，着重的；无可置疑的，明显的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
rhetoric
|
|
| n.修辞学，浮夸之言语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
indifference
|
|
| n.不感兴趣，不关心，冷淡，不在乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
discredited
|
|
| 不足信的，不名誉的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
punctilious
|
|
| adj.谨慎的，谨小慎微的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
lawful
|
|
| adj.法律许可的，守法的，合法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
culpable
|
|
| adj.有罪的，该受谴责的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
inquiry
|
|
| n.打听，询问，调查，查问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
layman
|
|
| n.俗人，门外汉，凡人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
profane
|
|
| adj.亵神的，亵渎的；vt.亵渎，玷污 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
habitually
|
|
| ad.习惯地，通常地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
favourable
|
|
| adj.赞成的，称赞的，有利的，良好的，顺利的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
regiment
|
|
| n.团，多数，管理；v.组织，编成团，统制 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
devoted
|
|
| adj.忠诚的，忠实的，热心的，献身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
inaccurate
|
|
| adj.错误的，不正确的，不准确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
radical
|
|
| n.激进份子，原子团，根号；adj.根本的，激进的，彻底的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
journalism
|
|
| n.新闻工作，报业 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
assails
|
|
| v.攻击( assail的第三人称单数 )；困扰；质问；毅然应对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
savagely
|
|
| adv. 野蛮地，残酷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
savage
|
|
| adj.野蛮的；凶恶的，残暴的；n.未开化的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
genial
|
|
| adj.亲切的，和蔼的，愉快的，脾气好的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
taint
|
|
| n.污点；感染；腐坏；v.使感染；污染 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
aphorism
|
|
| n.格言，警语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
scrutiny
|
|
| n.详细检查，仔细观察 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
fables
|
|
| n.寓言( fable的名词复数 )；神话，传说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
vice
|
|
| n.坏事；恶习；[pl.]台钳，老虎钳；adj.副的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
aggregate
|
|
| adj.总计的，集合的；n.总数；v.合计；集合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
inscriptions
|
|
| （作者）题词( inscription的名词复数 )； 献词； 碑文； 证劵持有人的登记 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
humanitarianism
|
|
| n.博爱主义；人道主义；基督凡人论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
humanitarian
|
|
| n.人道主义者，博爱者，基督凡人论者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
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： |
|
|
|
|
140
flouted
|
|
| v.藐视，轻视( flout的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
venial
|
|
| adj.可宽恕的；轻微的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
chapels
|
|
| n.小教堂， （医院、监狱等的）附属礼拜堂( chapel的名词复数 )；（在小教堂和附属礼拜堂举行的）礼拜仪式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
vices
|
|
| 缺陷( vice的名词复数 )； 恶习； 不道德行为； 台钳 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
persecution
|
|
| n. 迫害,烦扰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
forgeries
|
|
| 伪造( forgery的名词复数 )； 伪造的文件、签名等 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
candid
|
|
| adj.公正的，正直的；坦率的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
candidly
|
|
| adv.坦率地，直率而诚恳地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
virtue
|
|
| n.德行，美德；贞操；优点；功效，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
abased
|
|
| 使谦卑( abase的过去式和过去分词 )； 使感到羞耻； 使降低（地位、身份等）； 降下 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
purveyed
|
|
| v.提供，供应( purvey的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
pastor
|
|
| n.牧师，牧人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
appalling
|
|
| adj.骇人听闻的，令人震惊的，可怕的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
appallingly
|
|
| 毛骨悚然地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
slovenly
|
|
| adj.懒散的，不整齐的，邋遢的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
suburban
|
|
| adj.城郊的，在郊区的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
followers
|
|
| 追随者( follower的名词复数 )； 用户； 契据的附面； 从动件 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
vigour
|
|
| （=vigor）n.智力，体力，精力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
dexterity
|
|
| n.(手的)灵巧，灵活 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
159
valiant
|
|
| adj.勇敢的，英勇的；n.勇士，勇敢的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
motives
|
|
| n.动机，目的( motive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
garbled
|
|
| adj.（指信息）混乱的，引起误解的v.对（事实）歪曲，对（文章等）断章取义，窜改( garble的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
162
quotations
|
|
| n.引用( quotation的名词复数 )；[商业]行情（报告）；（货物或股票的）市价；时价 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
163
antiquated
|
|
| adj.陈旧的，过时的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
164
justify
|
|
| vt.证明…正当(或有理)，为…辩护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
165
obsolete
|
|
| adj.已废弃的，过时的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
166
skull
|
|
| n.头骨；颅骨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
167
pompous
|
|
| adj.傲慢的，自大的；夸大的；豪华的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
168
deluding
|
|
| v.欺骗，哄骗( delude的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
169
rebutting
|
|
| v.反驳，驳回( rebut的现在分词 )；击退 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
170
glibly
|
|
| adv.流利地，流畅地；满口 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
171
materialism
|
|
| n.［哲］唯物主义，唯物论；物质至上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
172
repudiate
|
|
| v.拒绝，拒付，拒绝履行 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
173
repudiated
|
|
| v.（正式地）否认( repudiate的过去式和过去分词 )；拒绝接受；拒绝与…往来；拒不履行（法律义务） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
174
extraordinarily
|
|
| adv.格外地；极端地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
175
sects
|
|
| n.宗派，教派( sect的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
176
slander
|
|
| n./v.诽谤，污蔑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
177
slanders
|
|
| 诽谤，诋毁( slander的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
178
thoroughly
|
|
| adv.完全地，彻底地，十足地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
179
licentious
|
|
| adj.放纵的，淫乱的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
180
discredits
|
|
| 使不相信( discredit的第三人称单数 )； 使怀疑； 败坏…的名声； 拒绝相信 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
181
calumnies
|
|
| n.诬蔑，诽谤，中伤（的话）( calumny的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
182
nun
|
|
| n.修女，尼姑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
183
seduced
|
|
| 诱奸( seduce的过去式和过去分词 )； 勾引； 诱使堕落； 使入迷 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
184
lighter
|
|
| n.打火机，点火器；驳船；v.用驳船运送；light的比较级 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
185
calumny
|
|
| n.诽谤，污蔑，中伤 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
186
tactic
|
|
| n.战略，策略；adj.战术的，有策略的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
187
militant
|
|
| adj.激进的，好斗的；n.激进分子，斗士 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
188
deluded
|
|
| v.欺骗，哄骗( delude的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
189
mendacious
|
|
| adj.不真的，撒谎的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
190
condemn
|
|
| vt.谴责，指责；宣判(罪犯)，判刑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
191
dirges
|
|
| n.挽歌( dirge的名词复数 )；忧伤的歌，哀歌 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
192
credentials
|
|
| n.证明，资格，证明书，证件 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
193
peculiar
|
|
| adj.古怪的，异常的；特殊的，特有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
194
bloody
|
|
| adj.非常的的；流血的；残忍的；adv.很；vt.血染 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
195
repression
|
|
| n.镇压，抑制，抑压 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
196
superstition
|
|
| n.迷信，迷信行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
197
overthrow
|
|
| v.推翻，打倒，颠覆；n.推翻，瓦解，颠覆 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
198
barbarians
|
|
| n.野蛮人( barbarian的名词复数 )；外国人；粗野的人；无教养的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
199
civic
|
|
| adj.城市的，都市的，市民的，公民的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
200
promising
|
|
| adj.有希望的，有前途的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
201
relics
|
|
| [pl.］n.遗物，遗迹，遗产；遗体，尸骸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
202
rapacity
|
|
| n.贪婪，贪心，劫掠的欲望 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
203
monks
|
|
| n.修道士，僧侣( monk的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
204
moors
|
|
| v.停泊，系泊（船只）( moor的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
205
commentators
|
|
| n.评论员( commentator的名词复数 )；时事评论员；注释者；实况广播员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
206
revival
|
|
| n.复兴，复苏，（精力、活力等的）重振 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
207
superstitions
|
|
| 迷信，迷信行为( superstition的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
208
sporadic
|
|
| adj.偶尔发生的 [反]regular；分散的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
209
triumphant
|
|
| adj.胜利的，成功的；狂欢的，喜悦的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
210
countless
|
|
| adj.无数的，多得不计其数的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
211
assailed
|
|
| v.攻击( assail的过去式和过去分词 )；困扰；质问；毅然应对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
212
immorality
|
|
| n. 不道德, 无道义 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
213
immoral
|
|
| adj.不道德的，淫荡的，荒淫的，有伤风化的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
214
massacres
|
|
| 大屠杀( massacre的名词复数 )； 惨败 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
215
disastrous
|
|
| adj.灾难性的，造成灾害的；极坏的，很糟的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
216
courageous
|
|
| adj.勇敢的，有胆量的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
217
intimidated
|
|
| v.恐吓；威胁adj.害怕的；受到威胁的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
218
destined
|
|
| adj.命中注定的；(for)以…为目的地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
219
supremacy
|
|
| n.至上；至高权力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
220
mediation
|
|
| n.调解 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
221
hampering
|
|
| 妨碍，束缚，限制( hamper的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
222
scholastic
|
|
| adj.学校的，学院的，学术上的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
223
plausibly
|
|
| 似真地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
224
gratitude
|
|
| adj.感激，感谢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
225
stimulate
|
|
| vt.刺激，使兴奋；激励，使…振奋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
226
inhumanly
|
|
| adv.无人情味地，残忍地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
227
injustice
|
|
| n.非正义，不公正，不公平，侵犯（别人的）权利 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
228
injustices
|
|
| 不公平( injustice的名词复数 )； 非正义； 待…不公正； 冤枉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
229
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： |
|
|
|
|
230
sedulously
|
|
| ad.孜孜不倦地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
231
unintelligible
|
|
| adj.无法了解的，难解的，莫明其妙的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
232
qualified
|
|
| adj.合格的，有资格的，胜任的，有限制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
233
logician
|
|
| n.逻辑学家 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
234
syllogism
|
|
| n.演绎法，三段论法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
235
derived
|
|
| vi.起源；由来；衍生；导出v.得到( derive的过去式和过去分词 )；（从…中）得到获得；源于；（从…中）提取 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
236
complacently
|
|
| adv. 满足地, 自满地, 沾沾自喜地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
237
vessels
|
|
| n.血管( vessel的名词复数 )；船；容器；（具有特殊品质或接受特殊品质的）人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
238
frankly
|
|
| adv.坦白地，直率地；坦率地说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
239
cultivation
|
|
| n.耕作，培养，栽培（法），养成 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
240
humane
|
|
| adj.人道的，富有同情心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
241
ethic
|
|
| n.道德标准，行为准则 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
242
reeked
|
|
| v.发出浓烈的臭气( reek的过去式和过去分词 )；散发臭气；发出难闻的气味 (of sth)；明显带有（令人不快或生疑的跡象） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
243
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： |
|
|
|
|
244
appreciation
|
|
| n.评价；欣赏；感谢；领会，理解；价格上涨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
245
enjoined
|
|
| v.命令( enjoin的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
246
sophistry
|
|
| n.诡辩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
247
mighty
|
|
| adj.强有力的；巨大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
248
parasitic
|
|
| adj.寄生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
249
illiteracy
|
|
| n.文盲 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
250
brutal
|
|
| adj.残忍的，野蛮的，不讲理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
251
coercing
|
|
| v.迫使做( coerce的现在分词 )；强迫；（以武力、惩罚、威胁等手段）控制；支配 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
252
sordid
|
|
| adj.肮脏的，不干净的，卑鄙的，暗淡的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
253
slanderous
|
|
| adj.诽谤的，中伤的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
254
incessant
|
|
| adj.不停的，连续的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
255
feverish
|
|
| adj.发烧的，狂热的，兴奋的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
256
mumbling
|
|
| 含糊地说某事，叽咕，咕哝( mumble的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
257
serene
|
|
| adj. 安详的，宁静的，平静的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
258
doom
|
|
| n.厄运，劫数；v.注定，命定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
259
dealing
|
|
| n.经商方法，待人态度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
260
organisation
|
|
| n.组织，安排，团体，有机休 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
261
corporate
|
|
| adj.共同的，全体的；公司的，企业的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
262
coercion
|
|
| n.强制，高压统治 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
263
formulated
|
|
| v.构想出( formulate的过去式和过去分词 )；规划；确切地阐述；用公式表示 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
264
inquiries
|
|
| n.调查( inquiry的名词复数 )；疑问；探究；打听 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
265
gush
|
|
| v.喷，涌；滔滔不绝(说话)；n.喷，涌流；迸发 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
266
blight
|
|
| n.枯萎病；造成破坏的因素；vt.破坏，摧残 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
267
previously
|
|
| adv.以前，先前（地） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
268
accurately
|
|
| adv.准确地，精确地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
269
utterly
|
|
| adv.完全地，绝对地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
270
wrought
|
|
| v.引起；以…原料制作；运转；adj.制造的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
271
materialistic
|
|
| a.唯物主义的，物质享乐主义的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
272
loathe
|
|
| v.厌恶，嫌恶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
273
entangled
|
|
| adj.卷入的；陷入的；被缠住的；缠在一起的v.使某人（某物/自己）缠绕，纠缠于（某物中），使某人（自己）陷入（困难或复杂的环境中）( entangle的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
274
inertia
|
|
| adj.惰性，惯性，懒惰，迟钝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
275
inert
|
|
| adj.无活动能力的，惰性的；迟钝的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
276
philosophic
|
|
| adj.哲学的，贤明的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
277
devoid
|
|
| adj.全无的，缺乏的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
278
absurdity
|
|
| n.荒谬，愚蠢；谬论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
279
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
280
ascendancy
|
|
| n.统治权，支配力量 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
281
impede
|
|
| v.妨碍，阻碍，阻止 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
282
curtail
|
|
| vt.截短，缩短；削减 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
283
lapse
|
|
| n.过失，流逝，失效，抛弃信仰，间隔；vi.堕落，停止，失效，流逝；vt.使失效 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
284
immortality
|
|
| n.不死，不朽 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
285
conclusive
|
|
| adj.最后的，结论的；确凿的，消除怀疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
286
dismal
|
|
| adj.阴沉的，凄凉的，令人忧郁的，差劲的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
287
throbs
|
|
| 体内的跳动( throb的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
288
perseveres
|
|
| v.坚忍，坚持( persevere的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
289
horrified
|
|
| a.(表现出)恐惧的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
290
exclamations
|
|
| n.呼喊( exclamation的名词复数 )；感叹；感叹语；感叹词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
291
shudder
|
|
| v.战粟，震动，剧烈地摇晃；n.战粟，抖动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
292
horrid
|
|
| adj.可怕的；令人惊恐的；恐怖的；极讨厌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
293
epithets
|
|
| n.（表示性质、特征等的）词语( epithet的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
294
outraged
|
|
| a.震惊的，义愤填膺的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
295
generosity
|
|
| n.大度，慷慨，慷慨的行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
296
temperament
|
|
| n.气质，性格，性情 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
297
assuage
|
|
| v.缓和，减轻，镇定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
298
pang
|
|
| n.剧痛，悲痛，苦闷 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
299
misery
|
|
| n.痛苦，苦恼，苦难；悲惨的境遇，贫苦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
300
brutality
|
|
| n.野蛮的行为，残忍，野蛮 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
301
goad
|
|
| n.刺棒，刺痛物；激励；vt.激励，刺激 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
302
corrupted
|
|
| （使）败坏( corrupt的过去式和过去分词 )； （使）腐化； 引起（计算机文件等的）错误； 破坏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
303
undo
|
|
| vt.解开，松开；取消，撤销 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
304
regenerated
|
|
| v.新生，再生( regenerate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
305
awaken
|
|
| vi.醒，觉醒；vt.唤醒，使觉醒，唤起，激起 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
306
babbled
|
|
| v.喋喋不休( babble的过去式和过去分词 )；作潺潺声（如流水）；含糊不清地说话；泄漏秘密 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |