Early Church Fathers Taught Two Seedline / Serpent Seed Doctrine
We have titled this program in such a manner, because most of the things we are about to present here, we have presented before. We reiterate them now, and hope to elaborate upon them somewhat further, in light of recent criticisms we have suffered from certain individuals who have apparently not even actually read our material, but only scoff at the general idea of Christian Identity. In reality, they have no accurate concept of what they criticize, because it is demonstrable that they criticize our work without having actually studied it.
So there are so-called “traditionalist” Christians who have criticized our Christian Identity position on Scripture, and especially on what we call Two-Seedline. They claim that if Two-Seedline is not found in the Early so-called Church Fathers, then it simply cannot be true. They claim that if Two-Seedline is not found in the Early so-called Church Fathers, then we have no credibility. But they are wrong, because our Two-Seedline teachings are indeed evident in some of the earliest Christian writings. And if we can demonstrate that there are at least a few references found in the earliest Christian writings which agree with Two-Seedline, it is no mistake, and then these traditionalist Christians have a serious problem if they continue to dispute with us. Because it is they who are citing these early Church Fathers as authorities, it is they who uphold these “Church Fathers” as authorities, where we ourselves do not esteem them to such a degree.
Furthermore, there is definite evidence that the writings of the Church Fathers themselves were often edited by later hands. Sections of their writings were cut out or modified to hide some of their supposed heresies, as well as some of their obvious ones. Many of the early Church Fathers did indeed espouse one heresy or another. Furthermore, interpolations of their writings were frequently made to lend support to later theological arguments. Among other reasons, this is why we would much rather interpret Scripture for ourselves, from the oldest possible manuscripts and within the context of the best possible understanding of history and the culture of the times.
But let me also state that the writings of the so-called Church Fathers are often in conflict with one another, and at times they are even found to be in apparent conflict with themselves. Sometimes the conflicts are cleared up when the broader context of a writer’s opinions is examined, and sometimes it is not. But for many of them, their writings are voluminous, so it is a very tedious and time-consuming task to mine through them in order to formulate definitive conclusions in regard to their opinions on various topics. Moreover, it is clear that many of them had even admittedly introduced Greek philosophy into their Christian doctrines. They mixed Scripture with Plato and others, and therefore we must recognize that their opinions were tainted with pagan ideas as well as Jewish ones, as they also often accepted the opinions of the Jews concerning the Old Testament.
In other regards, various early Christian writers had other problems. For example, Justin Martyr never cited Paul of Tarsus, and so far as we have seen, he seems to have been ignorant of accounts related in the Book of Acts. Many Judaean Christians had rejected Paul long before Justin Martyr was even born. This we can see even in the Book of Acts itself, in chapter 21, where there is evident a difference between James and Paul regarding the keeping of the law of Moses. James evidently believed that while those from among the Nations should only be required to keep the commandments of Christ and a few other injunctions, as we see in Acts chapter 15, that the Judaeans should maintain their own Mosaic customs separately. So we read in Acts 21: “18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Nations by his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Judaeans there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Judaeans which are among the Nations to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.” We would agree with Paul, that Yahweh said He would again make Israel and Judah into one stick, something which is impossible if they maintain separate identities and distinct customs.
In Justin Martyr’s Dialogue With Trypho, he himself seemed to be referring to the later Ebionites where he compares Judaean Christians who continued to keep the law of Moses but who did not expect non-Judeans to keep it, just as we see in Acts chapter 21, and others in Judaea who believed that the law of Moses should be kept by everyone, People which Paul also contended with. But while the Judaizers did not prevail among the Nations, they did evidently prevail among the Judaeans, and the sect of the Ebionites evolved. There are also further similarities between Justin’s writings and the literature of the later sect of the Ebionites, but there is no explicit connection between the two. We believe that Justin Martyr, a Greek Christian in Samaria, was influenced by the Judaean Christians who despised Paul and clung to Moses, and for that reason he did not employ, nor even seem to know the works of Paul of Tarsus.
So a short time after Justin, the early Christian writer Irenaeus wrote in his Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter 26: “Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavor to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practice circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God.” This was over a hundred years after Jerusalem was leveled by the Romans under Titus.
Justin Martyr is only one example of a significant divergence of opinions among the early Church Fathers. There are many others. It can be established that Clement of Alexandria was a Gnostic, and in many ways it is admissible that his peculiar definition of Gnosticism reflects a pious attitude, however he nevertheless accepted many of their heresies, and that acceptance affected his interpretations of Scripture. Irenaeus seemed to be gullible, and accepted certain apocryphal writings that can be shown to have been discredited at an early time, and deservedly so. Tertullian, a small-c catholic, later disputed with catholics and went off on some of his own heresies.
It is possible that I could make a career out of picking apart and condemning the so-called Church Fathers, but I would rather spend my time expounding upon what history and the Scriptures actually teach. I would rather engage myself in edification, rather than the tearing down of tradition, as the truth of Scripture by itself destroys the unreliable traditions of men. Yet in spite of their faults, on the other hand each of them were correct concerning many things, and they are valuable to us for many other reasons which we will not take the time to elaborate upon here. We only need to look at them not as idols, but as early men like ourselves seeking the truth about God and Scripture, and we can learn from their writings while casting aside their errors.
So here is an expansion of our before-published notes from Two-Seedline in the Early Church Fathers. We presented most of this in July of 2015 on a program which we had done with Sven Longshanks.
First, our basic position is that there is a race of people on earth who were created by God, which is the Adamic race, and the children of Israel were separated from out of that race for a peculiar purpose. We can indeed demonstrate that all of the Genesis 10 nations which descended from Noah were indeed White, as Scripture, and the Classical histories can prove. The world, which is the Adamic Society, was to be inherited by that one particular family of the seed of Abraham. We believe, and the Bible teaches, that they certainly did inherit it by the time of Christ, in the persons of the Romans, Dorian and Danaan Greeks, Germanic Kimmerians and Galatae, and the Phoenicians and proto-Keltic peoples of the West, as well as the Parthians of the East. All of these and other related tribes descended from the children of Israel and migrated into Europe from approximately 1600 BC down to the last great movements of the Germanic tribes ending in 5th century AD. Preceding them into Europe were the Japhethite tribes, with one degree of success or another. The climate in Europe made a prolonged early settlement of the interior of the continent practically impossible, and the Greeks explained as much in their writings.
Both the Old and New Covenants were made with these same children of Israel, and with nobody else, as the Scripture explicitly promises and as the apostles explicitly taught. There is no valid replacement for these people, as collectively they and their legitimate descendants are the Church of Scripture, even if the Church of man has not been conceived in this same manner. As the Old Testament so often teaches, even when they sin, Yahweh God has promised to save them and informs them that ultimately, they shall repent. He even promised to save them from their own agreement with hell with death and with the grave. No other people is ever given such promises in Scripture, Old Testament or New. The children of Israel are the lone beneficiaries of the promises of God, and He will not lose one of them. That is the promise of Christ.
Now apart from them, there is a “race” of people, if we can properly refer to bastards as a race, which cannot ever be redeemed, which Yahweh God did not plant, because they are bastards, which therefore came into existence in rebellion from God, and which can never be redeemed or reconciled to Him. They are literally the children of the devil, or of demons. They are forever in enmity with the children of God, and in the end they shall all be destroyed.
These two races, if we can call them that, are described several ways in Scripture. Before the transgression of Adam, they were the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, as opposed to the Tree of Life. At the transgression, they were identified, in part, as the seed of the serpent, as opposed to the seed of the woman. The wicked as opposed to the righteous, etc.
The lines can never be crossed between the two races. The wicked race can never be considered good regardless of its apparent behavior. It can never be accepted upon repentance, because it is not from God in the first place. The good race can engage in wicked behavior, and for that reason members of that race can be numbered with the bastards, but if they themselves are not bastards they always have the opportunity to repent and once again be numbered among the children of God, which is where they belong in the first place. This may be as simple an explanation that I can offer of Two-Seedline without going into a plethora of citations and many pages of further explanation.
The bottom line is this: There is a race which God created, and there was a rebellion which resulted in a collection of bastards, or bastard races. A child of God can join the bastards in their sin, and repent and return home. But bastards themselves are a corruption of God’s creation and they have no home where they may ever return.
So with that being explained, if we find a race which is described by the early Church Fathers which had an origin other than our own race, and which has no opportunity for repentance and conversion, then we find Two-Seedline teachings in the early Church Fathers, and our position cannot justly be discredited by our traditionalist critics. Rather, it is the critics themselves who need to recognize that we are correct. But before we offer that evidence in the early Church Fathers, we will offer a brief discussion of some of the universalist poison of Clement, Origen and Eusebius.
Clement of Alexandria misused the phrase “brood of vipers” in Book 1 Chapter 11 of The Instructor (Paedagogus) and in Book 4 chapter 16 of The Stromata. Then in his Exhortation to the Heathen, Chapter 1, he ascertained that one could go from being of the “brood of vipers” to being a man of God by accepting Christ, where he wrote:
Again, therefore, some venomous and false hypocrites, who plotted against righteousness, He once called “a brood of vipers.” But if one of those serpents even is willing to repent, and follows the Word, he becomes a man of God.
With this we disagree, as Christ Himself had professed that “22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” The Lake of Fire is reserved for the “Devil and his angels”, as well as all of the Goat Nations. That is their predestined fate, and from that they have no escape. John the Baptist had asked a particular brood of such vipers, “O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? ” Then he challenged them to repent, as the enemies of God are often challenged to repent. But they never could do well, and Luke later informs us that they were neither baptized by him, nor did they repent (Luke 7).
The universalist position of Scripture was expressed by Clement of Alexandria, and after him it was continued by his student Origen, another Alexandrian, and then by Eusebius. By the time of Eusebius, it seems to be the only position which he could imagine, although he neglected to mention at least some of his own theological opponents, such as Methodius of Olympus. Eusebius very likely omitted mention of Methodius because he was a theological opponent of Origen. Both men were heavily influenced by Plato. However in many ways it is evident that there was no general consensus among many of the so-called Church Fathers. The most politically expedient of their doctrines were later adopted by the Roman Catholic Church.
In A Letter from Origen to Africanus About the History of Susanna, in Part 9, Origen insisted that the Story of Susanna was removed from the Scriptures. We would agree, but he did not attribute the removal properly, where he wrote:
Wherefore I think no other supposition is possible, than that they who had the reputation of wisdom, and the rulers and elders, took away from the people every passage which might bring them into discredit among the people. We need not wonder, then, if this history of the evil device of the licentious elders against Susanna is true, but was concealed and removed from the Scriptures by men themselves not very far removed from the counsel of these elders.
However when we read Susanna itself, Daniel the prophet attributed the behavior of the rabbis to the fact that they are the “seed of Canaan, and not of Judah” who were posing as men of Judah. We would assert that for this reason the story of Susanna was oppressed by early Jews, who were indeed the seed of Canaan themselves as both the histories of Josephus and the New Testament writers all attest.
According to the words of Christ in Scripture, tares are people, but according to Origen, tares are “evil opinions”. Furthermore, the Scripture teaches that demons, or devils, can be either human or spirits, that they can be embodied or disembodied. Examples of this are in the warning of Peter, where he said that “your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about,” and in the words of Christ concerning Judas Iscariot, where He said “Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?” There are many other passages in Scripture which establish the fact that devils are people, or that particular people are devils. But Origen also seems confused as to the nature of demons, where sometimes he seems to admit that they are human. We will see that Justin Martyr certainly upheld that demons could be human.
In Volume 4 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers, in Origen’s Against Celsus at the very end of Book 7, he says that demons are “scattered as it were in troops in different parts of the earth” then in Book 3, chapter 32, of Against Celsus he seems to make the same implication where he says “we have to answer that probably certain wicked demons contrived that such statements should be committed to writing”. In other words, the scribes were demons, and in the Old Testament there is evidence which supports that assertion as well, as the Kenites were predominantly scribes even in Jerusalem.
However Origen was also a universalist as it is clear in Origen de Principiis, Chapter 5, On Rational Natures, where he gives “every rational creature” the ability to earn praise or receive censure from God, and imagines that even the devil and his angels can repent and earn praise. In contrast, Paul of Tarsus said in Hebrews chapter 12 that “7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? 8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.” So we see that Origen’s opinion was contrary to that of the apostle.
It can also be shown that the theology of the 3rd century Gallic bishop Irenaeus was also patterned to a great degree after Clement and Origen. But not all early Christians agreed with these things which Origen had taught.
Now we shall present some evidence from the so-called Church Fathers which favors Two-Seedline.
Justin Martyr was a Christian apologist who wrote in the mid-2nd century AD. He was born around 100 AD in Judaea, although he was of Roman and/or Greek ethnicity. If we read only parts of Justin Martyr, without considering everything he said, we may be led to believe that he was a universalist. Here is an example from his First Apology:
Chapter XXVIII.— God’s Care for Men.
For among us the prince of the wicked spirits is called the serpent, and Satan, and the devil, as you can learn by looking into our writings. And that he would be sent into the fire with his host, and the men who follow him, and would be punished for an endless duration, Christ foretold. For the reason why God has delayed to do this, is His regard for the human race. For He foreknows that some are to be saved by repentance, some even that are perhaps not yet born. In the beginning He made the human race with the power of thought and of choosing the truth and doing right, so that all men are without excuse before God; for they have been born rational and contemplative. And if any one disbelieves that God cares for these things he will thereby either insinuate that God does not exist, or he will assert that though He exists He delights in vice, or exists like a stone, and that neither virtue nor vice are anything, but only in the opinion of men these things are reckoned good or evil. And this is the greatest profanity and wickedness.
Here on the surface, it does appear as if Justin and Origen both agreed that the rational thought of man can permit man to choose to be good or evil. However Scripture teaches that the righteous and wicked are distinguished by the Word of God, and not by the choosing of men. Being chosen, the righteous are urged to obedience, and for those not chosen it matters not what they do. Christ told His apostles, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you…” Men do not choose God, but God chooses men. However if we continue reading, we will learn that not all two-legged creatures were considered human by Justin. From the Second Apology of Justin:
Chapter V.— How the Angels Transgressed.
But if this idea take possession of some one, that if we acknowledge God as our helper, we should not, as we say, be oppressed and persecuted by the wicked; this, too, I will solve. God, when He had made the whole world, and subjected things earthly to man, and arranged the heavenly elements for the increase of fruits and rotation of the seasons, and appointed this divine law – for these things also He evidently made for man – committed the care of men and of all things under heaven to angels whom He appointed over them. But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons; and besides, they afterwards subdued the human race to themselves, partly by magical writings, and partly by fears and the punishments they occasioned, and partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices, and incense, and libations, of which things they stood in need after they were enslaved by lustful passions; and among men they sowed murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate deeds, and all wickedness. Whence also the poets and mythologists, not knowing that it was the angels and those demons who had been begotten by them that did these things to men, and women, and cities, and nations, which they related, ascribed them to god himself, and to those who were accounted to be his very offspring, and to the offspring of those who were called his brother), Neptune and Pluto, and to the children again of these their offspring. For whatever name each of the angels had given to himself and his children, by that name they called them.
So we see in Justin’s mind, demons are men which were born among us who were the result of the unions described in Genesis chapter 6 between women and the so-called “angels”. He also professes that these demons have children. The apocryphal Book of Enoch, which the apostles themselves had cited, informs us of this same thing. We would assert that these very children can be traced in Scripture to the Kenites and Rephaim of Genesis chapter 15, and from there they can be traced down through the entire Bible, and that they are still with us today. That is a main tenet of Two-Seedline teaching.
But there is more to it than that. The following is from The Dialogue of Justin, Philosopher and Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew, or properly, a Judaean, from Chapter 4 which was titled The Soul of Itself Cannot See God:
“‘And what do those suffer who are judged to be unworthy of this spectacle? ’said he.
“‘They are imprisoned in the bodies of certain wild beasts, and this is their punishment.’
We should keep this statement in mind for later, when we present a passage from The Shepherd of Hermas. For now, Justin continues his dialogue, where Trypho asks:
“‘Do they know, then, that it is for this reason they are in such forms, and that they have committed some sin? ’
“‘I do not think so.’
“‘Then these reap no advantage from their punishment, as it seems: moreover, I would say that they are not punished unless they are conscious of the punishment.’
“‘Therefore souls neither see God nor transmigrate into other bodies; for they would know that so they are punished, and they would be afraid to commit even the most trivial sin afterwards. But that they can perceive that God exists, and that righteousness and piety are honourable, I also quite agree with you,’ said he.
“‘You are right,’ I replied.
So not only are demons people, but evil spirits are locked in the bodies of wild beasts, who are also evidently people, as the apostles Peter and Jude both described those infiltrators among Christians as “natural brute beasts” which were made to be taken and destroyed. This is another important tenet of Two-Seedline teaching. We believe that not all so-called people are really people, but that the non-White races are indeed beasts, and not people.
Further on in The Dialogue of Justin, Philosopher and Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew, from Chapter 79 which was subtitled He Proves Against Trypho that the Wicked Angels Have Revolted from God:
On this, Trypho, who was somewhat angry, but respected the Scriptures, as was manifest from his countenance, said to me, “The utterances of God are holy, but your expositions are mere contrivances, as is plain from what has been explained by you; nay, even blasphemies, for you assert that angels sinned and revolted from God.”
And I, wishing to get him to listen to me, answered in milder tones, thus: “I admire, sir, this piety of yours; and I pray that you may entertain the same disposition towards Him to whom angels are recorded to minister, as Daniel says; for [one] like the Son of man is led to the Ancient of days, and every kingdom is given to Him for ever and ever. But that you may know, sir,” continued I, “that it is not our audacity which has induced us to adopt this exposition, which you reprehend, I shall give you evidence from Isaiah himself; for he affirms that evil angels have dwelt and do dwell in Tanis, in Egypt. These are [his] words: ‘Woe to the rebellious children! Thus saith the Lord, You have taken counsel, but not through Me; and [made] agreements, but not through My Spirit, to add sins to sins; who have sinned in going down to Egypt (but they have not inquired at Me), that they may be assisted by Pharaoh, and be covered with the shadow of the Egyptians. For the shadow of Pharaoh shall be a disgrace to you, and a reproach to those who trust in the Egyptians; for the princes in Tanis are evil angels. In vain will they labour for a people which will not profit them by assistance, but [will be] for a disgrace and a reproach [to them].’ And, further, Zechariah tells, as you yourself have related, that the devil stood on the right hand of Joshua the priest, to resist him; and [the Lord] said, ‘The Lord, who has taken Jerusalem, rebuke thee.’ And again, it is written in Job, as you said yourself, how that the angels came to stand before the Lord, and the devil came with them. And we have it recorded by Moses in the beginning of Genesis, that the serpent beguiled Eve, and was cursed. And we know that in Egypt there were magicians who emulated the mighty power displayed by God through the faithful servant Moses. And you are aware that David said, ‘The gods of the nations are demons.’ ”
Justin Martyr clearly believed that there were men who were of the seed of the serpent, and dwelt among us. In his comparisons here, Justin also equated the serpent of Genesis to such a man, and that is another very important tenet of Two-Seedline teachings. Justin may not have identified each of the two seedlines in the same manner that we do, but he clearly taught what we can call Two-Seedline.
Tertullian was a theological opponent of both Clement and Origen. So he would have also been an opponent of Eusebius, if only he had lived that long. He was a Christian apologist and bishop of Carthage who wrote in the early 3rd century. While a lot of the ideas of Clement and Origen were from Plato and other Greek philosophers, Tertullian more properly saw in the Greek philosophers the descendants of more ancient Old Testament heretics. We may not think that the Greek philosophers themselves were devils, but they were certainly all influenced by the doctrines of devils.
The following is from Tertullian’s Apology, Chapter 22:
And we affirm indeed the existence of certain spiritual essences; nor is their name unfamiliar. The philosophers acknowledge there are demons; Socrates himself waiting on a demon’s will. Why not? since it is said an evil spirit attached itself specially to him even from his childhood — turning his mind no doubt from what was good. The poets are all acquainted with demons too; even the ignorant common people make frequent use of them in cursing. In fact, they call upon Satan, the demon-chief, in their execrations, as though from some instinctive soul-knowledge of him. Plato also admits the existence of angels. The dealers in magic, no less, come forward as witnesses to the existence of both kinds of spirits. We are instructed, moreover, by our sacred books how from certain angels, who fell of their own free-will, there sprang a more wicked demon-brood, condemned of God along with the authors of their race, and that chief we have referred to. It will for the present be enough, however, that some account is given of their work. Their great business is the ruin of mankind. So, from the very first, spiritual wickedness sought our destruction.
Spiritual wickedness embodied in human form, demons in shoe-leather, these are tenets of Two-Seedline and Christian Identity is the endeavor to identify these people in Scripture and in History, so that we may identify them in the world today. Further, from the Appendix to the works attributed to Tertullian, entitled Five Books in Reply to Marcion but which are claimed by some to be of unknown authorship, we see the racial message of Christian Identity did indeed persist down to Tertullian’s time, whether or not Tertullian himself actually wrote this:
Book V.— General Reply to Sundry of Marcion’s Heresies.
The first Book did the enemy’s words recall In
order, which the senseless renegade
Composed and put forth lawlessly; hence, too,
Touched briefly flesh’s hope, Christ’s victory,
5 And false ways’ speciousness. The next doth teach
The Law’s conjoined mysteries, and what
In the new covenant the one God hath
Delivered. The third shows the race, created
From freeborn mother, to be ministers
10 Sacred to seers and patriarchs; whom Thou,
O Christ, in number twice six out of all,
Chosest; and, with their names, the lustral times
Of our own elders noted, (times preserved
On record,) showing in whose days appeared.
15 The author of this wickedness, unknown,
Lawless, and roaming, cast forth with his brood.
The fourth, too, the peculiar rite recalls
Of the old Law themselves, and shows them types
In which the Victim True appeared, by saints
20 Expected long since, with the holy Seed.
This fifth doth many twists and knots untie,
Rolls wholly into sight what ills soe’er
Were lurking; drawing arguments, but not
Without attesting prophet.
Here we can clearly see a description of the race of Christ being the chosen 12 tribes, contrasted to the brood of the wicked. The “freeborn mother” is Sarah, as opposed to Hagar, and to these tribes, the chosen, is the New Covenant delivered. The writer considers the tribes to be “our own elders”. This also reflects important tenets of Two-Seedline Christian Identity.
Now Tertullian’s writing was not perfect, and seemed a little confused. He also had hints of universalism, for instance in A Treatise on the Soul, from chapter 21:
If so, then “God will not be able any longer to raise up from the stones children unto Abraham; nor to make a generation of vipers bring forth fruits of repentance.” And if so, the apostle too was in error when he said in his epistle, “Ye were at one time darkness, (but now are ye light in the Lord: )” and, “We also were by nature children of wrath; ” and, “Such were some of you, but ye are washed.” The statements, however, of holy Scripture will never be discordant with truth. A corrupt tree will never yield good fruit, unless the better nature be grafted into it; nor will a good tree produce evil fruit, except by the same process of cultivation. Stones also will become children of Abraham, if educated in Abraham’s faith; and a generation of vipers will bring forth the fruits of penitence, if they reject the poison of their malignant nature. This will be the power of the grace of God, more potent indeed than nature, exercising its sway over the faculty that underlies itself within us—even the freedom of our will, which is described as αὐτεξούσιος (of independent authority); and inasmuch as this faculty is itself also natural and mutable, in whatsoever direction it turns, it inclines of its own nature. Now, that there does exist within us naturally this independent authority (τὸ αὐτεξούσιον), we have already shown in opposition both to Marcion and to Hermogenes.
Now we would dispute with this. Children of Abraham may be raised from stones, but the Baptist did not say that stones can be made children of Abraham. Furthermore, children of Abraham may be raised from stones, but that does not make them the children of the promise. For that reason Paul contrasted Jacob and Esau in Romans chapter 9, or Sarah and Hagar in Galatians chapter 4. Paul then said in Romans 9 that “the children of the promise are counted for the seed”, referring to the promise made to Sarah and then to Rebecca, which was fulfilled in Jacob. Neither does this detract from Tertullian’s statements concerning a demon brood as a distinct race, if, like Justin Martyr, he does not count them as men. Indeed, he can not.
Ignatius of Antioch lived until about 117 AD, making him one of the earliest of post-apostolic Christian writers. Some scholars identity only about half of the letters attributed to him as valid, among which are those to the Trallians and the Magnesians which we are about to cite. Other scholars doubt the validity of any of his epistles, however they are indeed of great antiquity.
From The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians Chapter XI. —Avoid the Deadly Errors of the Docetae.
Do ye also avoid those wicked offshoots of his, Simon his firstborn son, and Menander, and Basilides, and all his wicked mob of followers, the worshippers of a man, whom also the prophet Jeremiah pronounces accursed. Flee also the impure Nicolaitanes, falsely so called, who are lovers of pleasure, and given to calumnious speeches. Avoid also the children of the evil one, Theodotus and Cleobulus, who produce death-bearing fruit, whereof if any one tastes, he instantly dies, and that not a mere temporary death, but one that shall endure for ever. These men are not the planting of the Father, but are an accursed brood. And says the Lord, “Let every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted be rooted up.” For if they had been branches of the Father, they would not have been “enemies of the cross of Christ,” but rather of those who “killed the Lord of glory.” But now, by denying the cross, and being ashamed of the passion, they cover the transgression of the Jews, those fighters against God, those murderers of the Lord; for it were too little to style them merely murderers of the prophets. But Christ invites you to [share in] His immortality, by His passion and resurrection, inasmuch as ye are His members.
Ignatius professes that there are races of people here who are not planted by God, and that is an important tenet of Two-Seedline. Then, in his The Epistle to the Magnesians, he proclaims that:
It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believeth might be gathered together to God.
Just like we had explained in our recent presentation, Christianity in the Old Testament, Part 1, an Introduction: What is a Catholic?, Ignatius also imagined the Old Testament to be a Christian book, and the Jews to be the ones who have innovated. And once again, there is a wicked brood, or race, which were not planted by Yahweh and which have no opportunity for redemption. So once again, we see an early Church Father, here one of the earliest, agrees with the important tenets of Two-Seedline.
So far we have seen Two-Seedline doctrines in the writings of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Ignatius of Antioch. Now we shall see it in one more place, and perhaps a place which is more legitimate than any of these others. We cited this passage yesterday evening in another context, but we will also cite it and discuss it here.
The following is from the edition of The Pastor of Hermas which is found in The Ante-Nicene Fathers by Roberts and Donaldson, the volumes of the early Christian writers which we have employed throughout these presentations. This is from Book Third—Similitudes, Similitude Ninth, The Great Mysteries in the Building of the Militant and Triumphant Church, Chapter XIX:
“From the first mountain, which was black, they that believed are the following: apostates and blasphemers against the Lord, and betrayers of the servants of God. To these repentance is not open; but death lies before them, and on this account also are they black, for their race is a lawless one. And from the second mountain, which was bare, they who believed are the following: hypocrites, and teachers of wickedness. And these, accordingly, are like the former, not having any fruits of righteousness; for as their mountain was destitute of fruit, so also such men have a name indeed, but are empty of faith, and there is no fruit of truth in them. They indeed have repentance in their power, if they repent quickly; but if they are slow in so doing, they shall die along with the former.” “Why, sir,” I said, “have these repentance, but the former not? for their actions are nearly the same.” “On this account,” he said, “have these repentance, because they did not blaspheme their Lord, nor become betrayers of the servants of God; but on account of their desire of possessions they became hypocritical, and each one taught according to the desires of men that were sinners. But they will suffer a certain punishment; and repentance is before them, because they were not blasphemers or traitors.”
Regardless of what we may make of the allegory in the overall context of The Pastor of Hermas, we see that there is a race which is lawless and wicked, and that “To these repentance is not open; but death lies before them, and on this account also are they black, for their race is a lawless one.” The apostles themselves spoke of the “angels that sinned” and attested that they were bound in “chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment”. They did not say that the angels were bound in chains in darkness, but in chains of darkness. Neither can they ever see repentance, as it is not open to them. This is also an important tenet of Two-Seedline.
Now we are going to borrow something which Clifton Emahiser had first published in his paper Early Celtic Church Taught Physical Seduction Of Eve! Clifton had found evidence that the early Celtic Church, which was independent of the Church of Rome until about the 13th century, had some tenets of Two-Seedline in its original doctrine.
This he found in a book titled The Celtic Church In Britain by Leslie Hardinge, in a chapter entitled “The Role of the Scriptures”, on page 48. Here Clifton said that “In this chapter he demonstrates the various methods of teaching used by the Celtic clergy. One of those methods was a question and answer liturgy of which the following is an authentic specimen (answers in parentheses):”
“Who died but was never born? (Adam)
Who gave but did not receive? (Eve, milk)
Who was born but did not die? (Elias and Enoch)
Who was born twice and died once? (Jonas the prophet, who for three days and three nights prayed in the belly of the whale. He neither saw the heavens nor touched the earth)
How many languages are there? (Seventy-two)
Who spoke with a dog? (St Peter)
Who spoke with an ass? (Balaam the prophet)
Who was the first woman to commit adultery? (Eve with the serpent)
How were the Apostles baptized? (The Saviour washed their feet).”
That is the end of the liturgy, which seems to have been designed for children. Clifton then responds and says:
Now all of you anti-seedliners (and everyone knows who you are) that have been running all over the country making all kinds of snide remarks and asking, “if Two-Seedline doctrine is true, why didn’t the early Church Fathers teach it”? My answer is: “they did teach it.” The anti-seedliners simply haven’t done their homework! And all of you who have been following and supporting these theology quacks, don’t you think it is about time to put their feet to the fire? False teachings scatter rather than gather the sheep!
And of course Clifton’s appraisal is true. False doctrines cause divisions, and worse than our foes in Christian Identity are the fools who claim to be “Traditional Christians” and who cling to the universal church which has above all been guilty of the destruction of our race at the hands of demons in human form. Clifton continues with the book he has cited:
Hardinge finished this chapter by saying the following: “… The Celtic Church cherished a deep love of the Bible, and from the Epistles of St Paul developed their theology. The Psalms were used in worship, and were the inspiration of poets and preachers. Without the influence of the views of church fathers Celtic theologians set about discovering what the Scriptures meant. Their tenets and practices, based on this understanding, show the eclecticism and pragmatism of exegete and layman. The legislation of Moses pervaded social, economic, and legal relationships to an extent seldom seen in the history of other branches of the Church. Unlike the theologians of Roman Christianity who appealed more and more to the teachings of Church and councils, Celtic teachers stressed the Bible. The role of the Scriptures in Celtic Christianity was indeed a vital one, so much so that no thorough study of the beliefs and practices of the Christians of Celtic lands is possible without bearing this fact in mind.”
Clifton now concludes:
That Eve committed adultery with the serpent was one of the tenets that the Celtic clergy taught! Over the last several years, I have piled substantial evidence on top of substantial evidence. Yet hecklers on the sidelines continue to criticize my research. It will be interesting how they will try to gainsay this evidence, but I’m sure they will attempt some asinine tactic. While some will blow everything but their nose, others will be strangely quiet!
Clifton had boasted that the early Church Fathers did indeed teach Two-Seedline, and this evening we have seen Clifton’s boast is now vindicated. The critics of Two-Seedline on all sides can scoff at us, but Scripture, History, and Truth are firmly on our side. The so-called “Trad Christians” may cling to Eusebius and the Council of Nicaea, but we shall cling to Christ and His apostles.