The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-01-16
stand tn. wifss psrsuasioa. .na ssa

l ~ af q stand the wtfss psrsuasion. and sts to please her.
 But there is another theory that we have thought entitled to consideration. I The Almighty had strictly forbidden them to eat of the fruit of one tree. and had pronounced the psnalty for dis obedience in such plain language that presumably sensible man. as Adam was, could hardly fan to understand it. Now. seeing that the only wife he possessed had eaten of the fruit. ahd understanding the dreadful penalty pro- nounced against the eater, what more natural than that . faithful and affec- tionate husband should resolve to cast in his lot with hers and so where she did? True. he rather played off on her when called to account but that was human nature, just as 1t was hu- man nature for Eve to saddle her dis obedience on the why serpent Many people are prone to shift the respon- sibility onto others when they find themselves cornered.
 There is yet another way to explain Adams easy yielding to temptation. To adhere to the Mosaic account of those early days, women were scarce at that early period of humanity. Maids and widows did not abound then and there as they now do. If there was another woman living we have no re- cord of her, and we can imagine Adam reasoning the matter out from his viewpoint, and coming to the conclusion that if he lost the only wife of his bosom he might not get another, and believing that they would be separated unless he followed her example he took the only course that promised con tnuance of the married state. A life in Eden with goats, donkeys and other animals for companions. and no wife to meet him when he came In from digging potatoes or milking the kline, to reward him for well doing and to much for him; therefore did Adam eat
 But we seem to have wandered away from The Amerieans query regarding the kind of fruit that made so much trouble. As intimated at the begin
 
 ming. there have always been disputa- tions about it. Learned scholars have assured us that there were no apples In Eden, but that assertion would be en- titled to more credit if any of them could tell us where Eden was located which they can't. So, denying that there were any apples at that time and place they get busy telling us what kind of fruittit was that caused the tumble. The difficulty with most of them is that they really do not know what the fruit was, and about all they can do is to guess. and one can guess fully as we'll as another. There Is a fruit, which belongs to the tomato family, sometimes called Eyes apple, and if you doubt the probability of that belief you may still see the print of her teeth on it. That ought to be good evidence.
 As to the lemon discussion that Is now so common we take no stock in 1t. It has not yet been shown us that there were lemons in Eden. and that puts a brake on the wheels of the lemonites to start with. And If there were any we do not believe one of them would be the kind of fruit that loving wife would hand her husband. If they'd been having a tiff over some domestic differences she might have handed him one. but in the first place the original brand of lemons, If our knowledge of such things is on straight, was not, the kind of fruit that a sensible woman would risk so much to eat. We rather strongly incline to the apple theory. A bright, fragrant apple would be about as tempting as any fruit likely to have been cultivated by our first parents, and we take it that. Eve had a fine taste for the beautiful and tempting. It was not lemon, we feel dead sure.