FALL. The doctrine of the F. is the doctrine of the historical introduction of evil into the world, as described in the third chapter of the book of Genesis. The statement of this chapter, in its natural and obvious meaning, is to this effect, that the serpent, which "was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made," tempted the woman to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, regarding which the Lord God had said, "Thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." In contempt of this command and warning, "the serpent said unto the woman: 'Ye shall not surely die; for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil:• And when the woman saw that the tree was good for fruit, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat." The result of this was, that their eyes were opened, and they knew that they ire naked; and when they heard the voice of the Lord in the garden, they hid themselves; and on being summoned, they acknowledged their transgression, and were driven forth from Eden. Separate punishments, also, as the consequence of the transgression, were denounced against the serpent, the woman, and the man. The first was cursed above all cattle, and condemned to go upon its belly, and to eat dust all the days of its life. Enmity was to be put between it and the woman, and between its seed and her seed; "it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." The woman was to bring forth children in sorrow, and to be subject to her husband, to whom her desire was to cleave. The ground was cursed for the man's sake, and he was to eat of it in sorrow all the days of his life; in the sweat of his face he was to eat bread tiil he returned to the ground.
Such is the narrative of Genesis, upon which the doctrine of the F. is based. The doctrine assumes various forms, according to the interpretation which the narrative receives. Some theologians interpret the narrative more literally—although none can be said to do so quite literally—and others interpret it more figuratively; while others reject it altogether as a narrative, and look upon it merely as a mythical story of the early time—mirroring the lapse from a primitive golden age, or age of innocence.
1. Even the most orthodox theologians so far spiritualize the narrative, or regard it figuratively. The serpent, for example, is with them the devil, although the text in Genesis itself gives no hint of such an interpretation. The enmity between the serpent and the woman is the enmity between the devil and mankind; and the bruising of the head and the heel is supposed to represent the victorious eonquest—although not without wounds and bruises—of Jesus Christ, as the Messiah, over the devil. The doctrine of the F., according to the most common mode of interpretation, may be stated in the follow ing terms: "Our first parents being seduced by the subtlety and temptation of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. By this sin, they fell from their original righteous ness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt
of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and 'corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation."—Westminster Con fession of Faith, c. vi. The F., in this view, is the temptation of our first parents to eat by the devil, and the inheritance of this act by their natural descendants. This may be said to be the orthodox doctrine of the Christian church.
2. Other theologians consider the third chapter of Genesis to be in the main allegor ical—representing a picture of the violence of appetite in our first parents. In this view, the serpent is a mere imaginary accessory—the emblem of temptation; the sup posed interview between God and our first parents is of the same character—the emblem of the voice of conscience following unlawful indulgence; the tree of the knowledge of good and evil represents some form of sensual indulgence. The only realities in the picture are the moral realities, conscience and temptation in some carnal form—realities which were no more powerful in the case of our first parents than they are in the case of all their descendants who yield to unlawful indulgence, as they did. The doctrine of the F., according to this interpretation, is simply the doctrine of the abuse of free will in our first parents; and the question of the relation of this primary sin to all sub sequent sin, is variously regarded by this class of theologians. All of them would repudiate any formal imputation of it; yet all or most allow some actual transmission or inheritance of corrupted will, as the consequence of the original abuse of it.
The Pelagian theory maintained, indeed, that the race was not the worse of Adam's fall; but that, as our first parents "were to blame for yielding to a temptation which they might have resisted, so all of us, by a proper attention in cultivating our natural powers, may maintain our innocence amidst the temptations with which we are sur rounded; and, therefore, that we fall short of that which it is in our power to do, if we do not yield a more perfect obedience to the law of God than Adam yielded." The Arminian theory, again, contended that the chief loss of the race, as the consequence. of the transgression of our first parents, was the subjection to death thereby incurred, and the moral disadvantages arising out of the fear of death. Others, more orthodox than either, contend that the spiritual unity of the race necessarily implies that the depraved will of our first parents has descended to their posterity as their unhappy portion.
3. The opinion of those who look upon the chapter in Genesis as a mere myth or fable, representing a dream of the religious imagination, without any special moral meaning, cannot be said to come within the pale of Christian theology. The doctrine of the F. is with them only a devout idea, inconsistent with their principles of philosophy and history, and which, accordingly, they dismiss from their speculation or concern altogether.