As to the ECFs views concerning "real presence", let's not forget the very real battles they were waging against the Gnostics. Remember, they were the ones who rejected the truth of Jesus having flesh and blood. When you read some of the ECFs writings on the subject, don't forget that context.
Perhaps Webster is a Gnostic.
You don't seem to understand that the gnostic's being fought against were those who denied The Eucharistic Real Presence and things like the Divinity of Christ
Just take a look at what Saint Irenaues writes,dear sister..
"So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God's gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ's Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, 'For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones' (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of 'spiritual' and 'invisible' man, 'for a spirit does not have flesh an bones' (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and 'the grain of wheat falls into the earth' (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ." -"Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely
Named Gnosis". Book 5:2, 2-3, circa 180 A.D. "For just as the bread which comes from the earth, having received the invocation of God, is no longer ordinary bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies, having received the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, because they have the hope of the resurrection." -"Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely named Gnosis". Book 4:18 4-5, circa 180 A.D.
FWIW, I'm not impressed with William Webster at all- It's pretty easy to prove him wrong by even using other protestants such as J.N.D Kelly who were far more knowledgeable than Webster on the Church Fathers
Here is some of what Kelly wrote..
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presence
Renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: "Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Saviors body and blood" (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).
From the Churchs early days, the Fathers referred to Christs presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: "Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists denial of the reality of Christs body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lords body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lords real humanity" (ibid., 19798).
"Hippolytus speaks of the body and the blood through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as the Lords body. The converted pagan, he remarks, feeds on the richness of the Lords body, that is, on the Eucharist. The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist the flesh feeds upon Christs body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God. Clearly his assumption is that the Saviors body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprians attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him. Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally" (ibid., 21112).
For the devout Catholic, there is no valid reason for leaving the Catholic church, ergo, they must be heretics, haters, anti's, whatever and and an agenda or personal grudge against the church.
They remind me of evolutionists who simply cannot comprehend that not everyone believes like they do, that looking at the evidence can come to another (and legitimate at that) conclusion.
For all the scurrilous accusations thrown at the reformers, for example, what is frequently ignored is the fact that many of them were extremely well acquainted with Catholicism, as in the case of Luther who was a Catholic priest.