Clement of Alexandria:
“But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin. Now such to us are the Scriptures of the Lord, which gave birth to the truth and continue virgin, in the concealment of the mysteries of the truth. ‘And she brought forth, and yet brought not forth,’ says the Scripture; as having conceived of herself, and not from conjunction.” Stromata 7.16 [A.D. 198-203]
Tertullian of Carthage:
“But the Son of God has no mother in any sense which involves the violation of her purity; in fact, she who is regarded as His mother did not marry [i.e. consummate her marriage]. But, let me discuss His nature first; then the manner of His birth will be understood.” – Tertullian The Apology Ch.21
Hippolytus of Rome:
“But the pious confession of the believer is that, with a view to our salvation, and in order to connect the universe with unchangeableness, the Creator of all things incorporated with Himself a rational soul and a sensible body from the all-holy Mary, ever-virgin, by an undefiled conception, without conversion, and was made man in nature.” Against Beron & Helix, Fragment 8 [A.D. c. 210-220]
Origen of Alexandria:
“For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus…” Origen, Commentary on John 1.6 [A.D. 226-229]
“They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or The Book of James, that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end… And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity.” Commentary on Matthew 10.17 [A.D. 246-248]
“At this point we ought to refute the heretics’ usual objections; otherwise some simpler people might be deceived. Someone or other gave vent to his madness and claimed that ‘the Savior had repudiated Mary because she had been joined to Joseph after his birth,’ this is what he said. I hope he knows what the state of his mind was when he said it! If heretics ever raise an objection like this to you, answer them and say, “Elizabeth surely was filled with the Holy Spirit when she said, ‘Blessed are you among women.’! If the Holy Spirit called Mary ‘blessed,’ how could the Savior repudiate her?” Furthermore, they assert that Mary had marital relations after the birth of Jesus. But they have no source of proof. For the children who were called Joseph’s were not born of Mary. There is no passage in Scripture that mentions this.” Homilies on Luke, Homily 7.4 [A.D. 234-240]
Hilary of Poitiers:
“If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother,’ as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate.” Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]
Athanasius of Alexandria:
“Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary.” Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]
Zeno of Verona:
“But Mary remained a virgin after her marriage, after her conception, and after her birth-giving.” Book 1, Treatise V: Chastity, Chapter 3
“Mary conceived as a virgin without corruption, gave birth as a virgin after conception, and remained a virgin after childbirth.” Book 2, Treatise VIII. On the Birth of the Lord II, Chapter 2
“She herself marvels the most that such a Son has come forth from her; one would not believe that He was born from her if she had not remained a virgin both after conception and after birth.” Zeno of Verona, Book 2, Treatise IX. On the Birth and Majesty of the Lord, Chapter 1
Jerome:
“We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it… You (Helvidius) say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born.” Against Helvidius 21 [A.D. 383]
Epiphanius of Salamis:
“[We believe in] the one who, for the sake of us men and for the sake of salvation, descended and was made flesh, that is begotten perfectly from holy Mary the ever-virgin through the Holy Spirit…” Ancoratus 119.5 [A.D. 374]
“And St. Mary was given the title, ‘Virgin,’ and it will not be altered, for the holy woman remained undefiled.” Panarion 78.6.2 [A.D. 375]
“…when the Virgin was entrusted to Joseph—lots having compelled her to take this step—she was not entrusted to him for marriage, since he was a widower. He was called her husband because of the Law, but it plainly follows from the Jewish tradition that the Virgin was not entrusted to him for matrimony. It was for the preservation of her virginity in witness to the things to come…” Letter to Arabia, Panarion 78.7.2-4 [A.D. 375]
Didymus the Blind:
“It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin.” The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]
Ambrose of Milan:
“Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son.” Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]
John Chrysostom:
“And when he had taken her, ‘he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.’ He has here used the word ‘till,’ not that you should suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform you that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, has he used the word, ‘till?’ Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, ‘The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.’ And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture says, ‘From age until age You are,’ not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, ‘In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,’ it does not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word ‘till,’ to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves you to make the inference. Thus, what it was necessary for you to learn of Him, this He Himself has said; that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth; but that which both was seen to be a consequence of the former statement, and was acknowledged, this in its turn he leaves for you to perceive; namely, that not even after this, she having so become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail, and a child-bearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her. For if he had known her, and had kept her in the place of a wife, how is it that our Lord commits her, as unprotected, and having no one, to His disciple, and commands him to take her to his own home? How then, one may say, are James and the others called His brethren? In the same kind of way as Joseph himself was supposed to be husband of Mary. For many were the veils provided, that the birth, being such as it was, might be for a time screened. Wherefore even John so called them, saying, ‘For neither did His brethren believe in Him.’” Homilies on Matthew, Homily 5.5 [A.D. 386-397]
Chromatius of Aquileia:
“But concerning what the Evangelist said, ‘And he did not know her till she had borne her firstborn son,’ not a few careless people insist on asking whether after the Lord’s birth the holy mother Mary had relations with Joseph. But this is not admissible on the grounds of either faith or truth. Far be it indeed that after the sacrament of so great a mystery and after the birth of the sublime Lord, one should believe that the Virgin Mary was intimate with a man. Remember that Mary the prophetess of the Old Testament (the sister of Moses and Aaron) remained a virgin unsullied by man, having beheld the light of heavenly signs after the plagues of Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea and the Lord’s glory going in advance and seen in a pillar of fire and clouds. It is not plausible therefore that the Mary of the Gospel, a virgin bearing God, who beheld God’s glory not in a cloud but was worthy of carrying him in her virginal womb, had relations with a man. Noah, who was made worthy to converse with God, declared that he would abstain from the conjugal need. Moses, after hearing God calling him from the bush, abstained from conjugal relations. Now are we to believe that Joseph, the man who always did what was right, had relations with holy Mary after the birth of the Lord?” Tractate on Matthew 3.1 [A.D. 387-407]
Augustine:
“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” Sermons 186 [A.D. 411]