Did early church fathers accept or deny real presence?

They all have some quotes which seem to support it and others which seem to deny it. Here are just a few. > Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He **made** it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. This seems like it could be interpreted a number of ways...but if it was solely just a metaphor, why would Jesus "make it" his body? If it's not actually his body, what is he "making it"? > Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, **supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh**, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, “It is the spirit that quickens;” and then added, “The flesh profits nothing,”— meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit The way this is phrased makes it seem like it's not literally Christ's flesh. Iraneus says something similar: > For when the Greeks, having arrested the slaves of Christian catechumens, then used force against them, in order to learn from them some secret thing [practised] among Christians, these slaves, having nothing to say that would meet the wishes of their tormentors, except that they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the body and blood of Christ, and **imagining that it was actually flesh and blood**, gave their inquisitors answer to that effect. Lost Fragments XIII