SIR,
I have just received your letter; and, at the same time, there was brought me a copy of the censure1 in manuscript. I find that I am as well treated in the former as M. Arnauld is ill treated in the latter. I am afraid there is some extravagance in both cases and that neither of us is sufficiently2 well known by our judges. Sure I am that, were we better known, M. Arnauld would merit the approval of the Sorbonne, and I the censure of the Academy. Thus our interests are quite at variance3 with each other. It is his interest to make himself known, to vindicate4 his innocence5; whereas it is mine to remain in the dark, for fear of forfeiting6 my reputation. Prevented, therefore, from showing my face, I must devolve on you the task of making my acknowledgments to my illustrious admirers, while I undertake that of furnishing you with the news of the censure.
I assure you, sir, it has filled me with astonishment8. I expected to find it condemning10 the most shocking heresy11 in the world, but your wonder will equal mine, when informed that these alarming preparations, when on the point of producing the grand effect anticipated, have all ended in smoke.
To understand the whole affair in a pleasant way, only recollect12, I beseech13 you, the strange impressions which, for a long time past, we have been taught to form of the Jansenists. Recall to mind the cabals14, the factions15, the errors, the schisms16, the outrages17, with which they have been so long charged; the manner in which they have been denounced and vilified18 from the pulpit and the press; and the degree to which this torrent19 of abuse, so remarkable20 for its violence and duration, has swollen21 of late years, when they have been openly and publicly accused of being not only heretics and schismatics, but apostates22 and infidels — with “denying the mystery of transubstantiation, and renouncing23 Jesus Christ and the Gospel.”
After having published these startling accusations24, it was resolved to examine their writings, in order to pronounce judgement on them. For this purpose the second letter of M. Arnauld, which was reported to be full of the greatest errors, is selected. The examiners appointed are his most open and avowed26 enemies. They employ all their learning to discover something that they might lay hold upon, and at length they produce one proposition of a doctrinal character, which they exhibit for censure.
What else could any one infer from such proceedings27 than that this proposition, selected under such remarkable circumstances, would contain the essence of the blackest heresies28 imaginable. And yet the proposition so entirely29 agrees with what is clearly and formally expressed in the passages from the fathers quoted by M. Arnauld that I have not met with a single individual who could comprehend the difference between them. Still, however, it might be imagined that there was a very great difference; for the passages from the fathers being unquestionably Catholic, the proposition of M. Arnauld, if heretical, must be widely opposed to them.
Such was the difficulty which the Sorbonne was expected to clear up. All Christendom waited, with wide-opened eyes, to discover, in the censure of these learned doctors, the point of difference which had proved imperceptible to ordinary mortals. Meanwhile M. Arnauld gave in his defences, placing his own proposition and the passages of the fathers from which he had drawn30 it in parallel columns, so as to make the agreement between them apparent to the most obtuse31 understandings.
He shows, for example, that St. Augustine says in one passage that “Jesus Christ points out to us, in the person of St. Peter, a righteous man warning us by his fall to avoid presumption32.” He cites another passage from the same father, in which he says “that God, in order to show us that without grace we can do nothing, left St. Peter without grace.” He produces a third, from St. Chrysostom, who says, “that the fall of St. Peter happened, not through any coldness towards Jesus Christ, but because grace failed him; and that he fell, not so much through his own negligence33 as through the withdrawment of God, as a lesson to the whole Church, that without God we can do nothing.” He then gives his own accused proposition, which is as follows: “The fathers point out to us, in the person of St. Peter, a righteous man to whom that grace without which we can do nothing was wanting.”
In vain did people attempt to discover how it could possibly be that M. Arnauld’s expression differed from those of the fathers as much as the truth from error and faith from heresy. For where was the difference to be found? Could it be in these words: “that the fathers point out to us, in the person of St. Peter, a righteous man”? St. Augustine has said the same thing in so many words. Is it because he says “that grace had failed him”? The same St. Augustine who had said that “St. Peter was a righteous man,” says “that he had not had grace on that occasion.” Is it, then, for his having said “that without grace we can do nothing”? Why, is not this just what St. Augustine says in the same place, and what St. Chrysostom had said before him, with this difference only, that he expresses it in much stronger language, as when he says “that his fall did not happen through his own coldness or negligence, but through the failure of grace, and the withdrawment of God”?
Such considerations as these kept everybody in a state of breathless suspense34 to learn in what this diversity could consist, when at length, after a great many meetings, this famous and long-looked-for censure made its appearance. But, alas35! it has sadly baulked our expectation. Whether it be that the Molinist doctors would not condescend36 so far as to enlighten us on the point, or for some other mysterious reason, the fact is they have done nothing more than pronounce these words: “This proposition is rash, impious, blasphemous37, accursed, and heretical!”
Would you believe it, sir, that most people, finding themselves deceived in their expectations, have got into bad humor, and begin to fall foul38 upon the censors39 themselves? They are drawing strange inferences from their conduct in favour of M. Arnauld’s innocence. “What!” they are saying, “is this all that could be achieved, during all this time, by so many doctors joining in a furious attack on one individual? Can they find nothing in all his works worthy40 of reprehension41, but three lines, and these extracted, word for word, from the greatest doctors of the Greek and Latin Churches? Is there any author whatever whose writings, were it intended to ruin him, would not furnish a more specious42 pretext43 for the purpose? And what higher proof could be furnished of the orthodoxy of this illustrious accused?
“How comes it to pass,” they add, “that so many denunciations are launched in this censure, into which they have crowded such terms as ‘poison, pestilence44, horror, rashness, impiety45, blasphemy46, abomination, execration47, anathema48, heresy’— the most dreadful epithets49 that could be used against Arius, or Antichrist himself; and all to combat an imperceptible heresy, and that, moreover, without telling as what it is? If it be against the words of the fathers that they inveigh50 in this style, where is the faith and tradition? If against M. Arnauld’s proposition, let them point out the difference between the two; for we can see nothing but the most perfect harmony between them. As soon as we have discovered the evil of the proposition, we shall hold it in abhorrence51; but so long as we do not see it, or rather see nothing in the statement but the sentiments of the holy fathers, conceived and expressed in their own terms, how can we possibly regard it with any other feelings than those of holy veneration52?”
Such is the specimen53 of the way in which they are giving vent7 to their feelings. But these are by far too deep-thinking people. You and I, who make no pretensions54 to such extraordinary penetration55, may keep ourselves quite easy about the whole affair. What! would we be wiser than our masters? No: let us take example from them, and not undertake what they have not ventured upon. We would be sure to get boggled in such an attempt. Why it would be the easiest thing imaginable, to render this censure itself heretical. Truth, we know, is so delicate that, if we make the slightest deviation56 from it, we fall into error; but this alleged57 error is so extremely finespun that, if we diverge58 from it in the slightest degree, we fall back upon the truth. There is positively59 nothing between this obnoxious60 proposition and the truth but an imperceptible point. The distance between them is so impalpable that I was in terror lest, from pure inability to perceive it, I might, in my over-anxiety to agree with the doctors of the Sorbonne, place myself in opposition61 to the doctors of the Church. Under this apprehension62, I judged it expedient63 to consult one of those who, through policy, was neutral on the first question, that from him I might learn the real state of the matter. I have accordingly had an interview with one of the most intelligent of that party, whom I requested to point out to me the difference between the two things, at the same time frankly64 owning to him that I could see none.
He appeared to be amused at my simplicity65 and replied, with a smile: “How simple it is in you to believe that there is any difference! Why, where could it be? Do you imagine that, if they could have found out any discrepancy66 between M. Arnauld and the fathers, they would not have boldly pointed25 it out and been delighted with the opportunity of exposing it before the public, in whose eyes they are so anxious to depreciate67 that gentleman?”
I could easily perceive, from these few words, that those who had been neutral on the first question would not all prove so on the second; but, anxious to hear his reasons, I asked: “Why, then, have they attacked this unfortunate proposition?”
“Is it possible,” he replied, “you can be ignorant of these two things, which I thought had been known to the veriest tyro68 in these matters? that, on the one hand, M. Arnauld has uniformly avoided advancing a single tenet which is not powerfully supported by the tradition of the Church; and that, on the other hand, his enemies have determined70, cost what it may, to cut that ground from under him; and, accordingly, that as the writings of the former afforded no handle to the designs of the latter, they have been obliged, in order to satiate their revenge, to seize on some proposition, it mattered not what, and to condemn9 it without telling why or wherefore. Do not you know how the keep them in check, and annoy them so desperately71 that they cannot drop the slightest word against the principles of the fathers without being incontinently overwhelmed with whole volumes, under the pressure of which they are forced to succumb72? So that, after a great many proofs of their weakness, they have judged it more to the purpose, and much less troublesome, to censure than to reply — it being a much easier matter with them to find monks73 than reasons.”
“Why then,” said I, “if this be the case, their censure is not worth a straw; for who will pay any regard to it, when they see it to be without foundation, and refuted, as it no doubt will be, by the answers given to it?”
“If you knew the temper of people,” replied my friend the doctor, “you would talk in another sort of way. Their censure, censurable74 as it is, will produce nearly all its designed effect for a time; and although, by the force of demonstration75, it is certain that, in course of time, its invalidity will be made apparent, it is equally true that, at first, it will tell as effectually on the minds of most people as if it had been the most righteous sentence in the world. Let it only be cried about the streets: ‘Here you have the censure of M. Arnauld! — here you have the condemnation76 of the Jansenists!’ and the Jesuits will find their account in it. How few will ever read it! How few, of them who do read, will understand it! How few will observe that it answers no objections! How few will take the matter to heart, or attempt to sift77 it to the bottom! Mark, then, how much advantage this gives to the enemies of the Jansenists. They are sure to make a triumph of it, though a vain one, as usual, for some months at least — and that is a great matter for them, they will look out afterwards for some new means of subsistence. They live from hand to mouth, sir. It is in this way they have contrived78 to maintain themselves down to the present day. Sometimes it is by a catechism in which a child is made to condemn their opponents; then it is by a procession, in which sufficient grace leads the efficacious in triumph; again it is by a comedy, in which Jansenius is represented as carried off by devils; at another time it is by an almanac; and now it is by this censure.”
“In good sooth,” said I “I was on the point of finding fault with the conduct of the Molinists; but after what you have told me, I must say I admire their prudence79 and their policy. I see perfectly80 well that they could not have followed a safer or more Judicious81 course.”
“You are right,” returned he; “their safest policy has always been to keep silent; and this led a certain learned divine to remark, ‘that the cleverest among them are those who intrigue82 much, speak little, and write nothing.’
“It is on this principle that, from the commencement of the meetings, they prudently84 ordained85 that, if M. Arnauld came into the Sorbonne, it must be simply to explain what he believed, and not to enter the lists of controversy86 with any one. The examiners, having ventured to depart a little from this prudent83 arrangement, suffered for their temerity87. They found themselves rather too vigourously refuted by his second apology.
“On the same principle, they had recourse to that rare and very novel device of the half-hour and the sand-glass. By this means they rid themselves of the importunity88 of those troublesome doctors, who might undertake to refute all their arguments, to produce books which might convict them of forgery89, to insist on a reply, and reduce them to the predicament of having none to give.
“It is not that they were so blind as not to see that this encroachment90 on liberty, which has induced so many doctors to withdraw from the meetings, would do no good to their censure; and that the protest of nullity, taken on this ground by M. Arnauld before it was concluded, would be a bad preamble91 for securing it a favourable92 reception. They know very well that unprejudiced persons place fully69 as much weight on the judgement of seventy doctors, who had nothing to gain by defending M. Arnauld, as on that of a hundred others who had nothing to lose by condemning him. But, upon the whole, they considered that it would be of vast importance to have a censure, although it should be the act of a party only in the Sorbonne, and not of the whole body; although it should be carried with little or no freedom of debate and obtained by a great many small manoeuvres not exactly according to order; although it should give no explanation of the matter in dispute; although it should not point out in what this heresy consists, and should say as little as possible about it, for fear of committing a mistake. This very silence is a mystery in the eyes of the simple; and the censure will reap this singular advantage from it, that they may defy the most critical and subtle theologians to find in it a single weak argument.
“Keep yourself easy, then, and do not be afraid of being set down as a heretic, though you should make use of the condemned93 proposition. It is bad, I assure you, only as occurring in the second letter of M. Arnauld. If you will not believe this statement on my word, I refer you to M. le Moine, the most zealous94 of the examiners, who, in the course of conversation with a doctor of my acquaintance this very morning, on being asked by him where lay the point of difference in dispute, and if one would no longer be allowed to say what the fathers had said before him, made the following exquisite95 reply: ‘This proposition would be orthodox in the mouth of any other — it is only as coming from M. Arnauld that the Sorbonne has condemned it!’ You must now be prepared to admire the machinery96 of Molinism, which can produce such prodigious97 overturnings in the Church — that what is Catholic in the fathers becomes heretical in M. Arnauld — that what is heretical in the Semi-Pelagians becomes orthodox in the writings of the Jesuits; the ancient doctrine98 of St. Augustine becomes an intolerable innovation, and new inventions, daily fabricated before our eyes, pass for the ancient faith of the Church.” So saying, he took his leave of me.
This information has satisfied my purpose. I gather from it that this same heresy is one of an entirely new species. It is not the sentiments of M. Arnauld that are heretical; it is only his person. This is a personal heresy. He is not a heretic for anything he has said or written, but simply because he is M. Arnauld. This is all they have to say against him. Do what he may, unless he cease to be, he will never be a good Catholic. The grace of St. Augustine will never be the true grace, so long as he continues to defend it. It would become so at once, were he to take it into his head to impugn99 it. That would be a sure stroke, and almost the only plan for establishing the truth and demolishing100 Molinism; such is the fatality101 attending all the opinions which he embraces.
Let us leave them, then, to settle their own differences. These are the disputes of theologians, not of theology. We, who are no doctors, have nothing to do with their quarrels. Tell our friends the news of the censure, and love me while I am, &c.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
censure
|
|
| v./n.责备；非难；责难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
variance
|
|
| n.矛盾，不同 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
vindicate
|
|
| v.为…辩护或辩解，辩明；证明…正确 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
innocence
|
|
| n.无罪；天真；无害 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
forfeiting
|
|
| （因违反协议、犯规、受罚等）丧失，失去( forfeit的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
vent
|
|
| n.通风口，排放口；开衩；vt.表达，发泄 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
astonishment
|
|
| n.惊奇，惊异 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
condemn
|
|
| vt.谴责，指责；宣判(罪犯)，判刑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
condemning
|
|
| v.（通常因道义上的原因而）谴责( condemn的现在分词 )；宣判；宣布…不能使用；迫使…陷于不幸的境地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
heresy
|
|
| n.异端邪说；异教 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
recollect
|
|
| v.回忆，想起，记起，忆起，记得 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
beseech
|
|
| v.祈求，恳求 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
cabals
|
|
| n.（政治）阴谋小集团，（尤指政治上的）阴谋( cabal的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
15
factions
|
|
| 组织中的小派别，派系( faction的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
schisms
|
|
| n.教会分立，分裂( schism的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
17
outrages
|
|
| 引起…的义愤，激怒( outrage的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
vilified
|
|
| v.中伤，诽谤( vilify的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
torrent
|
|
| n.激流，洪流；爆发，(话语等的)连发 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
swollen
|
|
| adj.肿大的，水涨的；v.使变大，肿胀 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
apostates
|
|
| n.放弃原来信仰的人( apostate的名词复数 )；叛教者；脱党者；反叛者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
23
renouncing
|
|
| v.声明放弃( renounce的现在分词 )；宣布放弃；宣布与…决裂；宣布摒弃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
accusations
|
|
| n.指责( accusation的名词复数 )；指控；控告；（被告发、控告的）罪名 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
pointed
|
|
| adj.尖的，直截了当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
avowed
|
|
| adj.公开声明的，承认的v.公开声明，承认( avow的过去式和过去分词) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
proceedings
|
|
| n.进程，过程，议程；诉讼(程序)；公报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
heresies
|
|
| n.异端邪说，异教( heresy的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
obtuse
|
|
| adj.钝的；愚钝的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
presumption
|
|
| n.推测，可能性，冒昧，放肆，[法律]推定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
negligence
|
|
| n.疏忽，玩忽，粗心大意 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
suspense
|
|
| n.（对可能发生的事）紧张感，担心，挂虑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
alas
|
|
| int.唉(表示悲伤、忧愁、恐惧等) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
condescend
|
|
| v.俯就，屈尊；堕落，丢丑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
blasphemous
|
|
| adj.亵渎神明的，不敬神的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
foul
|
|
| adj.污秽的；邪恶的；v.弄脏；妨害；犯规；n.犯规 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
censors
|
|
| 删剪（书籍、电影等中被认为犯忌、违反道德或政治上危险的内容）( censor的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
worthy
|
|
| adj.(of)值得的，配得上的；有价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
reprehension
|
|
| n.非难，指责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
42
specious
|
|
| adj.似是而非的；adv.似是而非地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
pretext
|
|
| n.借口，托词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
pestilence
|
|
| n.瘟疫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
impiety
|
|
| n.不敬；不孝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
blasphemy
|
|
| n.亵渎，渎神 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
execration
|
|
| n.诅咒，念咒，憎恶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
anathema
|
|
| n.诅咒；被诅咒的人(物)，十分讨厌的人(物) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
epithets
|
|
| n.（表示性质、特征等的）词语( epithet的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
inveigh
|
|
| v.痛骂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
abhorrence
|
|
| n.憎恶；可憎恶的事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
veneration
|
|
| n.尊敬，崇拜 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
specimen
|
|
| n.样本，标本 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
pretensions
|
|
| 自称( pretension的名词复数 )； 自命不凡； 要求； 权力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
penetration
|
|
| n.穿透，穿人，渗透 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
deviation
|
|
| n.背离，偏离；偏差，偏向；离题 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
alleged
|
|
| a.被指控的，嫌疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
diverge
|
|
| v.分叉，分歧，离题，使...岔开，使转向 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
positively
|
|
| adv.明确地，断然，坚决地；实在，确实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
obnoxious
|
|
| adj.极恼人的，讨人厌的，可憎的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
apprehension
|
|
| n.理解，领悟；逮捕，拘捕；忧虑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
expedient
|
|
| adj.有用的，有利的；n.紧急的办法，权宜之计 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
frankly
|
|
| adv.坦白地，直率地；坦率地说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
simplicity
|
|
| n.简单，简易；朴素；直率，单纯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
discrepancy
|
|
| n.不同；不符；差异；矛盾 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
depreciate
|
|
| v.降价，贬值，折旧 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
tyro
|
|
| n.初学者；生手 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
desperately
|
|
| adv.极度渴望地，绝望地，孤注一掷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
succumb
|
|
| v.屈服，屈从；死 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
monks
|
|
| n.修道士，僧侣( monk的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
censurable
|
|
| adj.可非难的，该责备的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
75
demonstration
|
|
| n.表明，示范，论证，示威 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
condemnation
|
|
| n.谴责; 定罪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
sift
|
|
| v.筛撒，纷落，详察 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
contrived
|
|
| adj.不自然的，做作的；虚构的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
prudence
|
|
| n.谨慎，精明，节俭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
judicious
|
|
| adj.明智的，明断的，能作出明智决定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
intrigue
|
|
| vt.激起兴趣，迷住；vi.耍阴谋；n.阴谋，密谋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
prudent
|
|
| adj.谨慎的，有远见的，精打细算的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
prudently
|
|
| adv. 谨慎地，慎重地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
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： |
|
|
|
|
86
controversy
|
|
| n.争论，辩论，争吵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
temerity
|
|
| n.鲁莽，冒失 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
importunity
|
|
| n.硬要，强求 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
forgery
|
|
| n.伪造的文件等，赝品，伪造（行为） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
encroachment
|
|
| n.侵入，蚕食 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
preamble
|
|
| n.前言；序文 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
favourable
|
|
| adj.赞成的，称赞的，有利的，良好的，顺利的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
condemned
|
|
| adj. 被责难的, 被宣告有罪的 动词condemn的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
zealous
|
|
| adj.狂热的，热心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
exquisite
|
|
| adj.精美的；敏锐的；剧烈的，感觉强烈的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
machinery
|
|
| n.(总称)机械，机器；机构 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
prodigious
|
|
| adj.惊人的，奇妙的；异常的；巨大的；庞大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
impugn
|
|
| v.指责，对…表示怀疑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
demolishing
|
|
| v.摧毁( demolish的现在分词 )；推翻；拆毁（尤指大建筑物）；吃光 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
fatality
|
|
| n.不幸，灾祸，天命 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |