Mary is no mere passive instrument in
Irenaeus’s thought. She actively, if subordinately, assists Christ in the
accomplishment of salvation. She is “that pure womb which regenerates men unto
God, and which he [Jesus] himself made pure.” This exalted language clearly
exceeds the restraint of both Ignatius and the New Testament. Therefore,
finally, two further observations need to be made. First, and more important,
Irenaeus does not perceive or present himself as an innovator or developer of
the apostolic witness. He contends vigorously against the Gnostics that where
they innovate, he stands in the tradition of the Apostles, having been trained
by their first students. Second, Mary is not so elevated as to be immune to
fault (Against Heresies 3.16.7 [ANF 1: 443]). (Tim
Perry and Daniel Kendall, The Blessed Virgin Mary (Guides to Theology;
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2013], 22-23, emphasis added)
It is this latter point that is developed by
Irenaeus’s rough contemporary, the Latin Father Tertullian (c. 155–c. 220). Indeed, the cranky North African
apologist and theologian is an exception to the now established trend toward
greater Marian exaltation. This is seen in four ways. First, where both Justin
and Irenaeus contrast Mary’s obedience with Eve’s disobedience when enunciating
the new Eve motif, Tertullian appears to downplay the women’s activity,
highlighting instead the contents and sources of their respective angelic
messages: Mary believed God’s truth; Eve, the Devil’s lie (Tertullian, On
the Flesh of Christ 17 [ANF 3: 536]). Second, while Tertullian
defends Mary’s virginity as a matter of biblical record (On the Flesh of
Christ 18, 20 [ANF 3: 537]), it is the reality of her motherhood—and
consequently the reality of her Son’s humanity—that receives more attention (On
the Flesh of Christ 17, 20, 21 [ANF 3: 536–39]). Third, Tertullian
does not shy away from including Mary among Jesus’ opponents prior to the
resurrection (Tertullian, Five Books Against Marcion 4.19 [ANF 3:
378]) and from indicting her as an example of unbelief (On the Flesh of
Christ 7 [ANF 3: 530]). Fourth, Tertullian explicitly denies
Mary’s in partu and post partum virginity, both for the sake
of the humanity of Jesus. Though Mary’s womb was not penetrated by a
father’s semen when Jesus was conceived, it was in fact opened by a male,
namely, her Son in the act of being born (On the Flesh of Christ 23 [ANF
3: 541]). Jesus, truly human, was truly born. As for the latter, over against
Gnostics who seemed to think that Jesus’ rejection of his family (cf. Mark
3:31–35) was an assertion of his inhumanity, Tertullian avers that the text’s
reference to “brothers” means just that: Mary and Joseph had other children,
each every bit as human as their eldest brother (On the Flesh of Christ 7
[ANF 3: 530]. See also Five Books Against Marcion 4.19 [ANF
3: 527–28; 3: 378] and On the Veiling of Virgins 6 [ANF 4: 31].
He goes on to discern a moral quality to both roles. Mary as virgin and as wife
distinctly hallows both celibacy and marriage as worthy Christian callings (cf.
Tertullian, On Monogamy 8 [ANF 4: 65]). (Ibid.,
23, emphasis added)