Did any of the Church Fathers interpret Matthew 1:25 as not speaking in a sexual sense?

Protestants often used Matthew 1:25 as proof text that Mary did not remain a perpetual virginity after her marriage to Joseph, but did any of the Early Church Fathers interpret or understand this verse as NOT speaking in a sexual sense? therefore perserving her virginity. >And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. [Matthew 1:25 KJV] >And he knew her not, till she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus. [Matthew 1:25 Douay Rheims] >και ουκ εγινωσκεν αυτην εως ου ετεκεν τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον και εκαλεσεν το ονομα αυτου ιησουν [Matthew 1:25 TR] >et non cognoscebat eam donec peperit filium suum primogenitum et vocavit nomen eius Iesum [Matthew 1:25 Vulgate]