In his eagerness to defend the real
humanity of Christ, Tertullian stresses the point that His body is not heavenly
but really born of the very substance of Mary, ex Maria, to such a
degree that he denies the virginity of Mary in partu and post partum.
Thus he states ‘Although she was a virgin when he conceived, she was a wife when
she brought forth’: Virgo quantum a viro: non virgo quantum a partu and et
si virgo concepit, in partu suo nupsit (De carne Chr. 23). He
understands the ‘brethren of Jesus’ as children of Mary according to the flesh
(ibid.; cf. also De carne Chr. 7; Adv. Marc. 4, 19; De
monog. 8; De virg. vel. 6). Tertullian’s authority in this matter
was later invoked by Helvidius. Jerome (Adv. Helv. 17) rejected it
answer: ‘As to Tertullian I have nothing else to say except that he was not a
man of the Church.’ The apparent hesitation of the earliest patristic writers
to speak out clearly on this subject is owning to the same reason as led
Tertullian to deny the virginitas in partu and post partum, namely,
the heresy of the Docetes. The claim of a perduring virginity seemed to him a
most welcome confirmation of their false belief that Christ had no real human
body, that He was only apparently conceived and born. (Johannes Quasten, Patrology,
4 vols. [Westminster, Md.: Christian Classics, Inc., 1992], 2:329)
