SIR,
Just as I had sealed up my last letter, I received a visit from our old friend M. N-. Nothing could have happened more luckily for my curiosity; for he is thoroughly1 informed in the questions of the day and is completely in the secret of the Jesuits, at whose houses, including those of their leading men, he is a constant visitor. After having talked over the business which brought him to my house, I asked him to state, in a few words, what were the points in dispute between the two parties.
He immediately complied, and informed me that the principal points were two — the first about the proximate power, and the second about sufficient grace. I have enlightened you on the first of these points in my former letter and shall now speak of the second.
In one word, then, I found that their difference about sufficient grace may be defined thus: The Jesuits maintain that there is a grace given generally to all men, subject in such a way to free-will that the will renders it efficacious or inefficacious at its pleasure, without any additional aid from God and without wanting anything on his part in order to act effectively; and hence they term this grace sufficient, because it suffices of itself for action. The Jansenists, on the other hand, will not allow that any grace is actually sufficient which is not also efficacious; that is, that all those kinds of grace which do not determine the will to act effectively are insufficient2 for action; for they hold that a man can never act without efficacious grace.
Such are the points in debate between the Jesuits and the Jansenists; and my next object was to ascertain3 the doctrine4 of the New Thomists. “It is rather an odd one,” he said; “they agree with the Jesuits in admitting a sufficient grace given to all men; but they maintain, at the same time, that no man can act with this grace alone, but that, in order to do this, he must receive from God an efficacious grace which really determines his will to the action, and which God does not grant to all men.” “So that, according to this doctrine,” said I, “this grace is sufficient without being sufficient.” “Exactly so,” he replied; “for if it suffices, there is no need of anything more for acting5; and if it does not suffice, why — it is not sufficient.”
“But,” asked I, “where, then, is the difference between them and the Jansenists?” “They differ in this,” he replied, “that the Dominicans have this good qualification, that they do not refuse to say that all men have the sufficient grace.” “I understand you,” returned I; “but they say it without thinking it; for they add that, in order to act, we must have an efficacious grace which is not given to all, consequently, if they agree with the Jesuits in the use of a term which has no sense, they differ from them and coincide with the Jansenists in the substance of the thing. That is very true, said he. “How, then,” said I, “are the Jesuits united with them? and why do they not combat them as well as the Jansenists, since they will always find powerful antagonists6 in these men, who, by maintaining the necessity of the efficacious grace which determines the will, will prevent them from establishing that grace which they hold to be of itself sufficient?”
“The Dominicans are too powerful,” he replied, “and the Jesuits are too politic7, to come to an open rupture8 with them. The Society is content with having prevailed on them so far as to admit the name of sufficient grace, though they understand it in another sense; by which manoeuvre9 they gain this advantage, that they will make their opinion appear untenable, as soon as they judge it proper to do so. And this will be no difficult matter; for, let it be once granted that all men have the sufficient graces, nothing can be more natural than to conclude that the efficacious grace is not necessary to action — the sufficiency of the general grace precluding10 the necessity of all others. By saying sufficient we express all that is necessary for action; and it will serve little purpose for the Dominicans to exclaim that they attach another sense to the expression; the people, accustomed to the common acceptation of that term, would not even listen to their explanation. Thus the Society gains a sufficient advantage from the expression which has been adopted by the Dominicans, without pressing them any further; and were you but acquainted with what passed under Popes Clement11 VIII and Paul V, and knew how the Society was thwarted12 by the Dominicans in the establishment of the sufficient grace, you would not be surprised to find that it avoids embroiling13 itself in quarrels with them and allows them to hold their own opinion, provided that of the Society is left untouched; and more especially, when the Dominicans countenance14 its doctrine, by agreeing to employ, on all public occasions, the term sufficient grace.
“The Society,” he continued, “is quite satisfied with their complaisance15. It does not insist on their denying the necessity of efficacious grace, this would be urging them too far. People should not tyrannize over their friends; and the Jesuits have gained quite enough. The world is content with words; few think of searching into the nature of things; and thus the name of sufficient grace being adopted on both sides, though in different senses, there is nobody, except the most subtle theologians, who ever dreams of doubting that the thing signified by that word is held by the Jacobins as well as by the Jesuits; and the result will show that these last are not the greatest dupes.”
I acknowledged that they were a shrewd class of people, these Jesuits; and, availing myself of his advice, I went straight to the Jacobins, at whose gate I found one of my good friends, a staunch Jansenist (for you must know I have got friends among all parties), who was calling for another monk16, different from him whom I was in search of. I prevailed on him, however, after much entreaty17, to accompany me, and asked for one of my New Thomists. He was delighted to see me again. “How now! my dear father,” I began, “it seems it is not enough that all men have a proximate power, with which they can never act with effect; they must have besides this a sufficient grace, with which they can act as little. Is not that the doctrine of your school?” “It is,” said the worthy18 monk; “and I was upholding it this very morning in the Sorbonne. I spoke19 on the point during my whole half-hour; and, but for the sand-glass, I bade fair to have reversed that wicked proverb, now so current in Paris: ‘He votes without speaking, like a monk in the Sorbonne.’” “What do you mean by your half-hour and your sand-glass?” I asked; “do they cut your speeches by a certain measure?” “Yes,” said he, “they have done so for some days past.” “And do they oblige you to speak for half an hour?” “No; we may speak as little as we please.” “But not as much as you please, said I. “O what a capital regulation for the boobies! what a blessed excuse for those who have nothing worth the saying! But, to return to the point, father; this grace given to all men is sufficient, is it not?” “Yes,” said he. “And yet it has no effect without efficacious grace?” “None whatever,” he replied. “And all men have the sufficient,” continued I, “and all have not the efficacious?” “Exactly,” said he. “That is,” returned I, “all have enough of grace, and all have not enough of it that is, this grace suffices, though it does not suffice — that is, it is sufficient in name and insufficient in effect! In good sooth, father, this is particularly subtle doctrine! Have you forgotten, since you retired20 to the cloister21, the meaning attached, in the world you have quitted, to the word sufficient? don’t you remember that it includes all that is necessary for acting? But no, you cannot have lost all recollection of it; for, to avail myself of an illustration which will come home more vividly22 to your feelings, let us suppose that you were supplied with no more than two ounces of bread and a glass of water daily, would you be quite pleased with your prior were he to tell you that this would be sufficient to support you, under the pretext23 that, along with something else, which however, he would not give you, you would have all that would be necessary to support you? How, then can you allow yourselves to say that all men have sufficient grace for acting, while you admit that there is another grace absolutely necessary to acting which all men have not? Is it because this is an unimportant article of belief, and you leave all men at liberty to believe that efficacious grace is necessary or not, as they choose? Is it a matter of indifference24 to say, that with sufficient grace a man may really act?” “How!” cried the good man; “indifference! it is heresy25 — formal heresy. The necessity of efficacious grace for acting effectively, is a point of faith — it is heresy to deny it.”
“Where are we now?” I exclaimed; “and which side am I to take here? If I deny the sufficient grace, I am a Jansenist. If I admit it, as the Jesuits do, in the way of denying that efficacious grace is necessary, I shall be a heretic, say you. And if I admit it, as you do, in the way of maintaining the necessity of efficacious grace, I sin against common sense, and am a blockhead, say the Jesuits. What must I do, thus reduced to the inevitable26 necessity of being a blockhead, a heretic, or a Jansenist? And what a sad pass are matters come to, if there are none but the Jansenists who avoid coming into collision either with the faith or with reason, and who save themselves at once from absurdity27 and from error!”
My Jansenist friend took this speech as a good omen28 and already looked upon me as a convert. He said nothing to me, however; but, addressing the monk: “Pray, father,” inquired he, “what is the point on which you agree with the Jesuits?” “We agree in this,” he replied, “that the Jesuits and we acknowledge the sufficient grace given to all.” “But,” said the Jansenist, “there are two things in this expression sufficient grace — there is the sound, which is only so much breath; and there is the thing which it signifies, which is real and effectual. And, therefore, as you are agreed with the Jesuits in regard to the word sufficient and opposed to them as to the sense, it is apparent that you are opposed to them in regard to the substance of that term, and that you only agree with them as to the sound. Is this what you call acting sincerely and cordially?”
“But,” said the good man, “what cause have you to complain, since we deceive nobody by this mode of speaking? In our schools we openly teach that we understand it in a manner different from the Jesuits.”
“What I complain of,” returned my friend” “is, that you do not proclaim it everywhere, that by sufficient grace you understand the grace which is not sufficient. You are bound in conscience, by thus altering the sense of the ordinary terms of theology, to tell that, when you admit a sufficient grace in all men, you understand that they have not sufficient grace in effect. All classes of persons in the world understand the word sufficient in one and the same sense; the New Thomists alone understand it in another sense. All the women, who form one-half of the world, all courtiers, all military men, all magistrates29, all lawyers, merchants, artisans, the whole populace — in short, all sorts of men, except the Dominicans, understand the word sufficient to express all that is necessary. Scarcely any one is aware of this singular exception. It is reported over the whole earth, simply that the Dominicans hold that all men have the sufficient graces. What other conclusion can be drawn30 from this, than that they hold that all men have all the graces necessary for action; especially when they are seen joined in interest and intrigue31 with the Jesuits, who understand the thing in that sense? Is not the uniformity of your expressions, viewed in connection with this union of party, a manifest indication and confirmation32 of the uniformity of your sentiments?
“The multitude of the faithful inquire of theologians: What is the real condition of human nature since its corruption33? St. Augustine and his disciples34 reply that it has no sufficient grace until God is pleased to bestow35 it. Next come the Jesuits, and they say that all have the effectually sufficient graces. The Dominicans are consulted on this contrariety of opinion; and what course do they pursue? They unite with the Jesuits; by this coalition36 they make up a majority; they secede37 from those who deny these sufficient graces; they declare that all men possess them. Who, on hearing this, would imagine anything else than that they gave their sanction to the opinion of the Jesuits? And then they add that, nevertheless, these said sufficient graces are perfectly38 useless without the efficacious, which are not given to all!
“Shall I present you with a picture of the Church amidst these conflicting sentiments? I consider her very like a man who, leaving his native country on a journey, is encountered by robbers, who inflict39 many wounds on him and leave him half dead. He sends for three physicians resident in the neighboring towns. The first, on probing his wounds, pronounces them mortal and assures him that none but God can restore to him his lost powers. The second, coming after the other, chooses to flatter the man — tells him that he has still sufficient strength to reach his home; and, abusing the first physician who opposed his advice, determines upon his ruin. In this dilemma40, the poor patient, observing the third medical gentleman at a distance, stretches out his hands to him as the person who should determine the controversy41. This practitioner42, on examining his wounds, and ascertaining43 the opinions of the first two doctors, embraces that of the second, and uniting with him, the two combine against the first, and being the stronger party in number drive him from the field in disgrace. From this proceeding44, the patient naturally concludes that the last comer is of the same opinion with the second; and, on putting the question to him, he assures him most positively45 that his strength is sufficient for prosecuting46 his journey. The wounded man, however, sensible of his own weakness, begs him to explain to him how he considered him sufficient for the journey. ‘Because,’ replies his adviser47, ‘you are still in possession of your legs, and legs are the organs which naturally suffice for walking.’ ‘But,’ says the patient, ‘have I all the strength necessary to make use of my legs? for, in my present weak condition, it humbly48 appears to me that they are wholly useless.’ ‘Certainly you have not,’ replies the doctor; ‘you will never walk effectively, unless God vouchsafes49 some extraordinary assistance to sustain and conduct you.’ ‘What!’ exclaims the poor man, ‘do you not mean to say that I have sufficient strength in me, so as to want for nothing to walk effectively?’ ‘Very far from it,’ returns the physician. ‘You must, then,’ says the patient, ‘be of a different opinion from your companion there about my real condition.’ ‘I must admit that I am,’ replies the other.
“What do you suppose the patient said to this? Why, he complained of the strange conduct and ambiguous terms of this third physician. He censured51 him for taking part with the second, to whom he was opposed in sentiment, and with whom he had only the semblance52 of agreement, and for having driven away the first doctor, with whom he in reality agreed; and, after making a trial of strength, and finding by experience his actual weakness, he sent them both about their business, recalled his first adviser, put himself under his care, and having, by his advice, implored53 from God the strength of which he confessed his need, obtained the mercy he sought, and, through divine help, reached his house in peace.
The worthy monk was so confounded with this parable54 that he could not find words to reply. To cheer him up a little, I said to him, in a mild tone: “But after all, my dear father, what made you think of giving the name of sufficient to a grace which you say it is a point of faith to believe is, in fact, insufficient?” “It is very easy for you to talk about it,” said he. “You are an independent and private man; I am a monk and in a community — cannot you estimate the difference between the two cases? We depend on superiors; they depend on others. They have promised our votes — what would you have to become of me?” We understood the hint; and this brought to our recollection the case of his brother monk, who, for a similar piece of indiscretion, has been exiled to Abbeville.
“But,” I resumed, “how comes it about that your community is bound to admit this grace?” “That is another question,” he replied. “All that I can tell you is, in one word, that our order has defended, to the utmost of its ability, the doctrine of St. Thomas on efficacious grace. With what ardor55 did it oppose, from the very commencement, the doctrine of Molina? How did it labor56 to establish the necessity of the efficacious grace of Jesus Christ? Don’t you know what happened under Clement VIII and Paul V, and how, the former having been prevented by death, and the latter hindered by some Italian affairs from publishing his bull, our arms still sleep in the Vatican? But the Jesuits, availing themselves, since the introduction of the heresy of Luther and Calvin, of the scanty57 light which the people possess for discriminating58 between the error of these men and the truth of the doctrine of St. Thomas, disseminated59 their principles with such rapidity and success that they became, ere long, masters of the popular belief; while we, on our part, found ourselves in the predicament of being denounced as Calvinists and treated as the Jansenists are at present, unless we qualified60 the efficacious grace with, at least, the apparent avowal61 of a sufficient. In this extremity62, what better course could we have taken for saving the truth, without losing our own credit, than by admitting the name of sufficient grace, while we denied that it was such in effect? Such is the real history of the case.”
This was spoken in such a melancholy63 tone that I really began to pity the man; not so, however, my companion. “Flatter not yourselves,” said he to the monk, “with having saved the truth; had she not found other defenders64, in your feeble hands she must have perished. By admitting into the Church the name of her enemy, you have admitted the enemy himself. Names are inseparable from things. If the term sufficient grace be once established, it will be vain for you to protest that you understand by it a grace which is not sufficient. Your protest will be held inadmissible. Your explanation would be scouted65 as odious66 in the world, where men speak more ingenuously67 about matters of infinitely68 less moment. The Jesuits will gain a triumph — it will be their grace, which is sufficient in fact, and not yours, which is only so in name, that will pass as established; and the converse69 of your creed70 will become an article of faith.”
“We will all suffer martyrdom first,” cried the father, “rather than consent to the establishment of sufficient grace in the sense of the Jesuits. St. Thomas, whom we have sworn to follow even to the death, is diametrically opposed to such doctrine.”
To this my friend, who took up the matter more seriously than I did, replied: “Come now, father, your fraternity has received an honor which it sadly abuses. It abandons that grace which was confided71 to its care, and which has never been abandoned since the creation of the world. That victorious72 grace, which was waited for by the patriarchs, predicted by the prophets, introduced by Jesus Christ, preached by St. Paul, explained by St. Augustine, the greatest of the fathers, embraced by his followers73, confirmed by St. Bernard, the last of the fathers, supported by St. Thomas, the angel of the schools, transmitted by him to your order, maintained by so many of your fathers, and so nobly defended by your monks74 under Popes Clement and Paul — that efficacious grace, which had been committed as a sacred deposit into your hands, that it might find, in a sacred and everlasting75 order, a succession of preachers, who might proclaim it to the end of time — is discarded and deserted76 for interests the most contemptible77. It is high time for other hands to arm in its quarrel. It is time for God to raise up intrepid78 disciples of the Doctor of grace, who, strangers to the entanglements79 of the world, will serve God for God’s sake. Grace may not, indeed, number the Dominicans among her champions, but champions she shall never want; for, by her own almighty80 energy, she creates them for herself. She demands hearts pure and disengaged; nay81, she herself purifies and disengages them from worldly interests, incompatible82 with the truths of the Gospel. Reflect seriously, on this, father; and take care that God does not remove this candlestick from its place, leaving you in darkness and without the crown, as a punishment for the coldness which you manifest to a cause so important to his Church.”
He might have gone on in this strain much longer, for he was kindling83 as he advanced, but I interrupted him by rising to take my leave and said: “Indeed, my dear father, had I any influence in France, I should have it proclaimed, by sound of trumpet84: ‘BE IT KNOWN TO ALL MEN, that when the Jacobins SAY that sufficient grace is given to all, they MEAN that all have not the grace which actually suffices!’ After which, you might say it often as you please, but not otherwise.” And thus ended our visit.
You will perceive, therefore, that we have here a politic sufficiency somewhat similar to proximate power. Meanwhile I may tell you that it appears to me that both the proximate power and this same sufficient grace may be safely doubted by anybody, provided he is not a Jacobin.
I have just come to learn, when closing my letter, that the censure50 has passed. But as I do not yet know in what terms it is worded, and as it will not be published till the 15th of February, I shall delay writing you about it till the next post. I am, &c.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
thoroughly
|
|
| adv.完全地，彻底地，十足地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
insufficient
|
|
| adj.(for，of)不足的，不够的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
ascertain
|
|
| vt.发现，确定，查明，弄清 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
acting
|
|
| n.演戏，行为，假装；adj.代理的，临时的，演出用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
antagonists
|
|
| 对立[对抗] 者，对手，敌手( antagonist的名词复数 )； 对抗肌； 对抗药 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
politic
|
|
| adj.有智虑的；精明的；v.从政 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
rupture
|
|
| n.破裂；(关系的)决裂；v.(使)破裂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
manoeuvre
|
|
| n.策略，调动；v.用策略，调动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
precluding
|
|
| v.阻止( preclude的现在分词 )；排除；妨碍；使…行不通 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
11
clement
|
|
| adj.仁慈的；温和的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
thwarted
|
|
| 阻挠( thwart的过去式和过去分词 )； 使受挫折； 挫败； 横过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
embroiling
|
|
| v.使（自己或他人）卷入纠纷( embroil的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
14
countenance
|
|
| n.脸色，面容；面部表情；vt.支持，赞同 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
complaisance
|
|
| n.彬彬有礼，殷勤，柔顺 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
monk
|
|
| n.和尚，僧侣，修道士 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
entreaty
|
|
| n.恳求，哀求 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
worthy
|
|
| adj.(of)值得的，配得上的；有价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
spoke
|
|
| n.（车轮的）辐条；轮辐；破坏某人的计划；阻挠某人的行动 v.讲，谈（speak的过去式）；说；演说；从某种观点来说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
retired
|
|
| adj.隐退的，退休的，退役的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
cloister
|
|
| n.修道院；v.隐退，使与世隔绝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
vividly
|
|
| adv.清楚地，鲜明地，生动地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
pretext
|
|
| n.借口，托词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
indifference
|
|
| n.不感兴趣，不关心，冷淡，不在乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
heresy
|
|
| n.异端邪说；异教 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
inevitable
|
|
| adj.不可避免的，必然发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
absurdity
|
|
| n.荒谬，愚蠢；谬论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
omen
|
|
| n.征兆，预兆；vt.预示 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
magistrates
|
|
| 地方法官，治安官( magistrate的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
intrigue
|
|
| vt.激起兴趣，迷住；vi.耍阴谋；n.阴谋，密谋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
confirmation
|
|
| n.证实，确认，批准 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
corruption
|
|
| n.腐败，堕落，贪污 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
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： |
|
|
|
|
35
bestow
|
|
| v.把…赠与，把…授予；花费 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
coalition
|
|
| n.结合体，同盟，结合，联合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
secede
|
|
| v.退出，脱离 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
inflict
|
|
| vt.(on)把…强加给，使遭受，使承担 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
dilemma
|
|
| n.困境，进退两难的局面 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
controversy
|
|
| n.争论，辩论，争吵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
practitioner
|
|
| n.实践者，从事者；(医生或律师等)开业者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
ascertaining
|
|
| v.弄清，确定，查明( ascertain的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
proceeding
|
|
| n.行动，进行，(pl.)会议录，学报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
positively
|
|
| adv.明确地，断然，坚决地；实在，确实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
prosecuting
|
|
| 检举、告发某人( prosecute的现在分词 )； 对某人提起公诉； 继续从事（某事物）； 担任控方律师 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
adviser
|
|
| n.劝告者，顾问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
humbly
|
|
| adv. 恭顺地，谦卑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
vouchsafes
|
|
| v.给予，赐予( vouchsafe的第三人称单数 )；允诺 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
50
censure
|
|
| v./n.责备；非难；责难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
censured
|
|
| v.指责，非难，谴责( censure的过去式 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
semblance
|
|
| n.外貌，外表 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
implored
|
|
| 恳求或乞求（某人）( implore的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
parable
|
|
| n.寓言，比喻 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
ardor
|
|
| n.热情，狂热 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
labor
|
|
| n.劳动，努力，工作，劳工；分娩；vi.劳动，努力，苦干；vt.详细分析；麻烦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
scanty
|
|
| adj.缺乏的，仅有的，节省的，狭小的，不够的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
discriminating
|
|
| a.有辨别能力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
disseminated
|
|
| 散布，传播( disseminate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
qualified
|
|
| adj.合格的，有资格的，胜任的，有限制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
avowal
|
|
| n.公开宣称，坦白承认 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
extremity
|
|
| n.末端，尽头；尽力；终极；极度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
melancholy
|
|
| n.忧郁，愁思；adj.令人感伤（沮丧）的，忧郁的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
defenders
|
|
| n.防御者( defender的名词复数 )；守卫者；保护者；辩护者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
scouted
|
|
| 寻找，侦察( scout的过去式和过去分词 )； 物色（优秀运动员、演员、音乐家等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
odious
|
|
| adj.可憎的，讨厌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
ingenuously
|
|
| adv.率直地，正直地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
infinitely
|
|
| adv.无限地，无穷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
converse
|
|
| vi.谈话，谈天，闲聊；adv.相反的，相反 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
creed
|
|
| n.信条；信念，纲领 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
confided
|
|
| v.吐露（秘密，心事等）( confide的过去式和过去分词 )；（向某人）吐露（隐私、秘密等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
victorious
|
|
| adj.胜利的，得胜的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
followers
|
|
| 追随者( follower的名词复数 )； 用户； 契据的附面； 从动件 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
monks
|
|
| n.修道士，僧侣( monk的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
everlasting
|
|
| adj.永恒的，持久的，无止境的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
deserted
|
|
| adj.荒芜的，荒废的，无人的，被遗弃的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
contemptible
|
|
| adj.可鄙的，可轻视的，卑劣的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
intrepid
|
|
| adj.无畏的，刚毅的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
entanglements
|
|
| n.瓜葛( entanglement的名词复数 )；牵连；纠缠；缠住 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
almighty
|
|
| adj.全能的，万能的；很大的，很强的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
nay
|
|
| adv.不；n.反对票，投反对票者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
incompatible
|
|
| adj.不相容的，不协调的，不相配的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
kindling
|
|
| n. 点火, 可燃物 动词kindle的现在分词形式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
trumpet
|
|
| n.喇叭，喇叭声；v.吹喇叭，吹嘘 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |