The following quotation is courtesy of William Albrecht. It is a reference from a semi-Arian writer from the 4th century who refutes an Arian heretic named Eunomius for denying Mary’s perpetual virginity. This shows that the attack on the perpetual virginity essentially stemmed Arian heretics, individuals who denied the full, essential Deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. All emphasis is from Albrecht himself.
“But he knew her not until she had given birth to a son.”
Truly he did not know her beforehand, that is, what honor she had been given, who had been made the mother of the only-begotten God. But after she gave birth, then he knew her because she was made more splendid and noble than the entire world. She alone received in the narrowest chamber of her womb him whom the whole world could not lay hold of and him whom the world did not deserve to receive.
Joseph saw that she remained a virgin after her birth. He saw how the mystery of the star stood above the boy’s head and showed the lad to the coming magi. It gave witness by standing still because it could not talk. He saw the magi come at last, worshiping him and offering him their divine gifts. He heard their tales, how they had come from the east to Jerusalem, as the star led them, which did not scorn to serve human beings that it might reveal God’s glory. Therefore, his incomparable birth, which exceeded the measure of all human birth, showed to Joseph both the divinity of the child who was born and the honor of Mary who gave birth to him. Therefore he said, “But he knew her not until she had given birth to a son.” He knew who she was after his birth.
From this statement, some people, following Eunomius, think that until Mary gave birth Joseph did not have carnal relations with her, but afterwards he knew her and she gave birth to children. For this reason he calls Christ the firstborn because we call him firstborn whom other siblings follow. A mad person does not think that anyone is sane; because they dared to say this about her, they also think that Joseph dared to do it. The evangelist, you see, says that which could have been done was not done, but why would he have thought that it was necessary to say about that which was not able to be done, “It was not done”? Let me give you a couple of examples. A certain individual quarreled with another and, as long as he lived thereafter, he did not speak to him. When I said, “as long as he lived, he did not speak to him,” did I imply that after his death he spoke to him, a deed that cannot be done? So it was also believable that Joseph would have known her before she gave birth, because he did not yet know the full splendor of the mystery. But after he learned that she had been made the temple of the only-begotten God, how could he have taken possession of this temple? Is it that previously, as a religious man, he had not wanted to do this because he expected that he would do it after the marriage, so that he could defile the dwelling place of God with his carnal desires?
Now I have argued these things merely according to common sense. But let us turn to the authority of the Scripture. In accordance with the example of the prophet, the apostle says about Christ: “He must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.”
Now does Paul mean that Christ will reign only until all things have been put under his feet but that afterwards he will cease to reign?
What a foolish idea! He who reigned before all things were subjected to him will reign all the more also after all things have been subjected to him. Again, he says elsewhere, “Till I come attend to the public reading of Scripture.”
He does not mean “Til I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, but when I come, neglect it,” does he?
Now as to the fact that he is “the firstborn,” as I have been talking about, it is the usage of the Scriptures to not only call the one who is born the firstborn, but also him who an old child, When the Lord says to Pharaoah, “Israel is my firstborn son,” it cannot mean that there is another people, can it? But if you can say that he was saying that he was calling the Jewish people the firstborn according to his foreknowledge since he knew that he would make another people out of the Gentiles, I would say to you that he has always had two peoples as far as his foreknowledge is concerned, but he would have one people from the Jews and from the Gentiles alike, just as also he now has. (Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum Homilia I on Matthew 1:25)
Note about Eunomius from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“The sect of Arian extremists became known as Aetians, and later as Eunomians and Anomoeans.”
FURTHER READING
What the Early Church Believed: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Church Fathers on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
“The Greek ‘heos hou’ in Matthew 1:25 disproves Mary’s Perpetual Virginity”?
Answering Islam Blog 