Justification by faith, the verdict issued in the present time over gospel faith which anticipates the verdict issued in the future over the entire life, thus produces the solid assurance of membership, now and in the future, in the single family promised to Abraham, which as I have already stressed is the family whose sins have been forgiven, since the purpose of the covenant in the first place was always to deal with sin."Since the PURPOSE of the Covenant in the FIRST PLACE was ALWAYS to deal with SIN. Is there a response or is this acknowledged? Not in the last year that I am aware of. I have yet to see any written critique of these talks and I would be especially interested to see some from those who have screamed the loudest about +Tom's lack of orthodoxy. This balanced view of Paul that encapsulates the whole Christian life is often missing from those who are most verbal in their critiques of +Tom Wright. Here is a portion of the lecture:
Justification by faith, the verdict issued in the present time over gospel faith which anticipates the verdict issued in the future over the entire life, thus produces the solid assurance of membership, now and in the future, in the single family promised to Abraham, which as I have already stressed is the family whose sins have been forgiven, since the purpose of the covenant in the first place was always to deal with sin. Justification in the present tells every believer that she or he is a beloved, forgiven child of God, a fact which must at once be put into practice in terms of full membership in God’s people, full dining rights at the family table. Justification by faith in the present is therefore equally about (a) the sigh of relief that I don’t have to earn my status in God’s people, simply to receive it, and (b) the definition of the Christian community in terms of nothing more nor less than faith itself. And this brings us back where we began: because, since the covenant community was promised to Abraham and his family, and since the Jewish people had been the embattled guardians of that promise for two millennia, nothing was more natural, but nothing would have been more fatal to God’s ultimate purposes, than for the bearers of the promise to try to confine it to Abraham’s family according to the flesh. They had been entrusted with the promise, but they had proved untrustworthy, and had not brought about the worldwide glorification of Israel’s God that had been intended. (That is what is going on in Romans 3.1–8, and it would be good to see the supposed defenders of reformed orthodoxy offering an exegesis of that passage.) But now the Messiah has been faithful, as the representative Israelite, so that God’s own covenant faithfulness would be unveiled in action in his ‘obedience unto death, even the death of the cross’. And since the covenant purpose, to deal with sin and to launch new creation, has thus been spectacularly accomplished in his work, justification in the present must be by faith alone, not by works of the Jewish Law, partly because all human beings have fallen short of God’s glory, and partly because if it were by the Law only Jews would qualify. And we know, because Paul insists on it, with that little single-syllable, single-letter word we spoke of an hour ago, that God is not the God of Jews only, but of Gentiles also, since God is one.You can find the rest here.
What allows his system to have such an odd and counter-intuitive application is simply his most basic theological conviction: the world exists so that God may be imitated and participated as diversely as possible. So far from belief in the Incarnation of God the Son limiting the range and vitality of human difference, we now have in this doctrine a ground for discerning how diversity may be harmonised by seeing differences as distinct ways of offering the one eternal gift of God’s life to each other so that each distinct subject becomes able to reflect God’s life more completely. Belief in the Body of Christ gives us the means of discerning where and how diversity becomes symphonic. Of course it does not do so automatically, and there is no charter here for simple postmodern or consumerist plurality – an abundance of possible possessions surveyed by a set of monolithic, undifferentiated choosing wills. But Hooker’s world is one shaped by a maker’s intention; and that intention is unmistakeably the diffusion of bliss in a world of history and difference, a world therefore of argument and interpretation, even, we could say, of that intellectual charity which takes trouble with the recalcitrant stranger in order to make him or her a partner in discourse.Now, I do not pretend to be a Hooker scholar but I find this paragraph a bit puzzling and only wonder how much of this interepretation of Hooker is reading our present situations back into him? Is this really Hooker's world?
The ‘sufficiency’ or perfection of Scripture, argues Hooker, is a matter of its perfect capacity to do what it is meant to do. If we try to make it do more than it is meant to, we destroy its credibility; if we suggest, for example, that nothing except what is commanded in the Bible can be other than sinful, we paralyse a great deal of ordinary human life. A reductio ad absurdum – no order could ever be given unless backed by the Bible, and Hooker imagines theologically acute domestic servants waiting for their masters to produce a biblical warrant for ordering them to light a fire or cook a meal. But the underlying point is wholly serious. The Bible is neither a complete nor an incomplete law book. We have to break through the sterile opposition between Catholic and puritan error, Catholics arguing that all sorts of things are obligatory under divine law that are not contained in the Bible, puritans countering with the claim that everything not commanded in Scripture is in effect prohibited. Both extremes, by couching their question in terms of what will please God and further their salvation, miss the main thing, which is that Scripture uncovers the ‘abundant’ purpose of God in creation and redemption, the glory that human creatures in communion with Christ are made to manifest.
And even so pass we to another mystery, for one mystery leads us to another; this in the text, to the holy mysteries we are providing to partake, which do work like, and do work to this, even to the raising of the soul with “the first resurrection.” And as they are a means for the raising of our soul out of the soil of sin—for they are given us, and we take them expressly for the remission of sins—so are they no less a means also, for the raising of our bodies out of the dust of death. The sign of that body which was thus “in the heart of the earth,” to bring us from thence at the last. Our Saviour saith it totidem verbis [as many words], “Whoso eateth My flesh and drinketh My Blood, I will raise him up at the last day”—raise him, whither He hath raised Himself. Not to life only, but to life and glory, and both without end.I would appreciate any prayers offered on my behalf as well as the other participants. Thanks.
Catholic teaching is clear: Christ is not physically present in the same way that other people and objects are present, but he is sacramentally present. His presence, in other words, is not corporeal or dimensional. So, for instance, when the host is broken, Christ is not broken. When we eat the host, we receive Christ, but Christ is not chewed or broken down by our digestive juices. Indeed, Christ does not cease to be in heaven when he is made present at the Eucharist. In the Eucharist, the reality of the bread gives way to the reality of Christ.
What were appearances of bread and wine when it was, before the consecration, bread and wine that was present, are now, after the consecration, the signs of Christ’s presence as our food and drink. What were appearances of bread and wine now tell us something about the reality that is present: not bread, but Christ, who is given for our nourishment, by sharing in his life. In other words, the appearances have now become signs and, as Herbert McCabe once said, while appearances show us something, signs tell us something. Signs are language. The difference is that appearances are simply and sometimes misleadingly apprehended, while signs have to be understood. The appearances of bread and wine become in the Eucharist the sacramental signs of Christ’s real presence. Sacramental signs are, however, not just pointers, but effective signs: that is, they effect what they signify.
THIS IS why the Church can speak of the eucharistic presence which comes to be without the involvement of natural causes or the changing of one thing into another. God is the reason why there is a world of natural causality: every natural cause is effective only because of the creative causality of God. In the Eucharist, the bread doesn’t turn into the body of Christ by acquiring a new form in its matter: Christ is not fashioned from or made out of bread. But, by God’s power, the whole existence of the bread gives way to the existence of the living body of Christ. The difference between what happens in the Eucharist and what happens in substantial change is the same as the difference between substantial change and the creative act of God by which existence itself comes into being, from nothing.
Aristotelian language proved itself inadequate to explaining the Eucharist, even in the hands of St Thomas. But it is not only Aristotelian language: language itself is inadequate. No language could be adequate, ever, to explain this mystery of faith. That language breaks under the burden of mystery is not peculiar to the matter in hand but is a characteristic of all language employed in theology. Of necessity, theological language teeters permanently on the brink of nonsense.
After all, besides being a true sacrifice, the Eucharist is also essentially a sign. As Vonier says, the Eucharist is a sacramental sacrifice and not a natural one.7 It involves a representation. While it would be theologically incorrect to deny the sacrificial character of the Eucharist and the real presence of Christ in the sacrament, it would be no less incorrect to deny its character as a sign. Indeed, if the Eucharist were simply a new natural sacrifice and not a sacramental one, the altar would become a rival to the cross.8 The Eucharist accomplishes what it signifies, but this accomplishment does not eliminate its being as a sign; the Eucharist continues to signify. Since it is a sign, its distinctive mode of appearing becomes part of what it is; even an ontological reflection on the Eucharist would have to take into account its mode of presentation. Being a sign is not a matter of just psychological interpretation or of something that occurs "only" in our minds. We can react to the Eucharist as a sacramental sign only because it is such a sign.
The fact of being a sign takes on particular importance in the Eucharist, because the Mass can be considered a true and proper sacrifice each time it is offered only if the sacramental appearance brings an increase in identity and being. If the new appearance did not have something entitative about itself—in the way in which manifestation in all its forms is a dimension of offering—the present celebration would fail to distinguish itself appropriately from the event that occurred only once. The necessary range of differences would not be available to allow the sacramental reenactment of the original action. Thus, it is in the area of presentation that the new element of the liturgical celebration takes place; it is there that we can find the differences within which the identity of the redemptive action of Christ can be sacramentally disclosed. James T. O'Connor observes that the Council of Trent left many issues concerning the Eucharist open for further theological discussion, and among them "it left unexplained the novum (the new element) present in each Mass." It is not that more is offered in the Mass than in the original sacrifice or that something else is offered, but the mode of presentation is changed, along with the new datives for this presentation, who are then drawn into the offering. The sacramental sacrifice both is and is not "new," in the way—analogously—that a picture both is and is not other to what it depicts, and a quotation both is and is not a new statement.'"
The Mass is different from such worldly analogues, however, because at its core it is a presentation not just before us but before the eternal Father. The Eucharist is a reenactment in time of the action of the incarnate Son before the Father; what is it to quote, image, recall, and proclaim this act before God the Father? The original sacrifice is not "past" for the eternal Father in the way it is past for us; hence quotation and representation before the Father are not like quotations and representations exercised simply among men. The Eucharist transcends time for us because it presents itself before the transcendence of God. In these and many other respects, the way in which the Eucharist is a sign is an issue for the theology of disclosure.
All that the Church can do of her own initiative, if the phrase may be allowed, is to bring to God the fruits of the earth as they have passed through the hands of man, the priest of the natural order. She brings them to God, as his Son brought them to him at the Last Supper, and in obedience to the command that he there; she brings them to God to be transformed and made a sacrifice by God's acceptance. And if man was unfallen Adam, that would be the whole story. Man is not, however, unfallen Adam; he is fallen and redeemed by and in the New Adam, who at the Last Supper declared that the bread and wine were his Body and Blood. Man's sin-stained gifts of bread and wine are totally ineffective, but they are all that he has to offer. He cannot bring a worthy offering of the fruits of God's creation, yet he must bring what he can. He brings his bread and wine into the realm of redemption and does with it what the Redeemer has commanded him to do. He speaks of it as if it were in that pristine state in which unfallen Adam might have offered it. He puts it into the hands of God to be transformed by God's acceptance. And lo! when God accepts it, it is transformed into the one offering which is unstained and worthy, the offering of the Body and Blood of Christ. God has, as it were, slipped underneath man's stained and inefficacious offering the pure and altogether sufficient offering of his Son. Taking the fruits of creation from the hands of his Church he has re-created, redeemed and restored them. So, in the Eucharist, not only the redeemed community but also the redeemed material order is offered to God the Father in the ascended Christ. 181 l82
The Spirit comes not upon us now at our conception in the womb, to anoint us there. No, we behove to light our lamps oft, and to spend much oil at our studies, ere we can attain it. This way come we to our anointing now, by books—this Book chiefly, but, in a good part also, by the books of the ancient Fathers and lights of the Church, in whom the scent of this ointment was fresh and the temper true, on whose writings it lieth thick, and we thence strike it off and gather it safely." (l6l7. Preached at Holyrood.
There are, in short, three aspects of the Eucharistic sacrifice. First, the Eucharist is the perpetual sacramental presentation in the Church's midst of the one full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice of Christ, as the means by which sin is atoned for, the Church is made, and the world is brought under the mercy of God. Secondly, the Eucharist is the means by which human lives are made acceptable to God by their union with the perfect life of his Son and are transformed by his acceptance. Thirdly, the Eucharist is the means by which the material creation is presented to God by the perfect Man, in whose immaculate body matter itself has been united to Godhead, and so, in the Eucharist, not only man but the sub-human realm as well is transformed by the divine acceptance. Bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ; man's natural food becomes his supernatural food. So in the Eucharist the final transformation and glorification of the created world is eschatologically anticipated. The Father's creation is offered to him by and in his Incarnate Son, in whom he is well pleased; and, being accepted by him in the beloved, it is transformed into an eternal sacrifice by which he is for ever adored.God transforms the work of human hands (bread and wine) and makes them worthy of offering in the same way he transforms us to make us worthy of offering ourselves for the life of the world (Rom. 12.1-2). It is important to understand that Mascall begins here, not with the order of redemption, but creation and this creation has and is being redeemed by Christ. Our Eucharistic offerings are the celebrations of that ongoing transformation in the Incarnate Son as we are drawn up into him in this rite. The one thing that really stands out in the above quotation is Mascall's intentional emphasis that speaks against a prevailing neo-Gnostic view of "spirituality" that finds itself immersed in both Protestant and Catholic spirituality and individualism today. What is obvious for Mascall is that the work of redemption is the transformation of all of creation. Man is the pinnacle of creation who stands between and within time and eternity possessing body and soul that is being transformed from glory into glory.
At what point is it reasonable to suggest that a covenant child has faith? When she can articulate the gospel? When he can explain the concept of justification? Only after they have gone through an extended period where their faith is tested and proven to be real faith? Or is the capacity for faith directly linked to a certain age or level of maturity?
The Scriptures indicate that we can be confident that our children have faith from the womb and that we can expect that faith to flower and bloom throughout their life by God's grace.
What is the nature of such faith? From where does it come and what do the Scriptures have to say about it? How can anyone say that an infant has the capacity for faith?
In this book, Rich Lusk answers these questions and more, giving hope to Christian parents that their little ones do indeed belong to Christ and have the capacity to trust Him.
It is not merely that Andrewes knew Greek, or that Latimer was addressing a far less cultivated public, or that the sermons of Andrewes are peppered with allusion and quotation. It is rather that Latimer, the preacher of Henry VIII and Edward VI, is merely a Protestant; but the voice of Andrewes is the voice of a man who has a formed visible Church behind him, who speaks with the positive authority and the new culture. It is the difference of negative and positive: Andrewes is the first great preacher of the English Catholic Church."This is indeed true. Andrewes is the father of English Catholicism and was all about renewing the Church on its foundation with a view to changing the present. Andrewes' theological foundation was described by him as one canon reduced to writing by God himself, two testaments, three creeds, four general councils, five centuries, and the series of Fathers in that period. This was the framework of all of his thought and ecclesiology. The Church existed to defend Andrewes; not for him to defend her.
One must keep in mind that the Gnesio-lutherans, following Luther' lead, had taught the legitimacy of adoring Christ in the eucharistic elements. Luther, in addition to retaining the elevation in both the German and Latin Masses, explicitly stated in 1525 that while he did not teach that the form of bread is to be adored, he did teach that the body of Christ in the bread is to be honoured.
The feast of the victory of Lutheranism over Melancthonianism was celebrated in the principality of Brandenberg with prayers for the preservation of the doctrine of justification by faith and the doctrine of the sacrament's adoration. 428Now, isn’t interesting how this feast celebrates both Luther’s view of justification by faith and the preservation of the adoration of the Christ on the altar in the Sacrament? These two went together for Luther and I only wonder how it is that they have become so isolated from one another in Reformed thinking. Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith seems to be wrapped up in his sacramental theology. If this is true of Lutheran theology (I have not read enough to make a substantial case), why have so many claimed one (justification by faith) so strongly and yet vehemently rejected the other (Luther's sacramental theology)?
Infants can perfectly well have this faith in embryonic form; when a loving mother feeds her baby, she is or can be preaching the gospel through the unconditional love she offers and the baby can respond. There’s lots more I could say about that but no time now. The question comes when someone is older, and mentally capable, and the implicit and embryonic faith has to grow up and stand on its own feet. At this point assent to events is important, not to turn faith into a work but because the gospel message is precisely that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead. I’m not sure what’s implied by the question of assent and rejection being ‘exactly equal’. I am reminded of C. S. Lewis’s examples of questions which even God finds unanswerable: is yellow square or round? How many hours are there in a mile?
We then remembering too, O sovereign LORD,
in the presence of Thy holy mysteries,
the salutary passion of Thy CHRIST,
His lifegiving cross,
most precious death,
three days sepulture,
resurrection from the dead,
ascent into heaven,
session at the right hand of Thee, O LORD,
that we, receiving in the pure testimony
of our conscience,
our portion of Thy sacred things,
may be made one with the holy Body and Blood
of Thy CHRIST;
and receiving them not unworthily,
we may hold CHRIST indwelling in our hearts,
and may become a temple
of Thy HOLY SPIRIT
Yea, O our GOD,
nor make any of us guilty
of Thy dreadful and heavenly mysteries,
nor infirm in soul or body
from partaking of them unworthily.
But grant us
until our last and closing breath,
worthily to receive a hope of Thy holy things,
for sanctification, enlightening, strengthening,
a relief of the weight of my many sins,
a preservative against all satanic working,
a riddance and hindrance of my evil conscience,
a mortification of my passions,
an appropriation of Thy commandments,
an increase of Thy divine grace;
and a securing of Thy kingdom.
That at the celebration thereof, after the Sacrament was ministered to the people, the Priest stood up and said as the Seraphin doth here, Behold this hath touched your lips, your iniquity shall bee taken away, and your sinne purged. The whole fruit of Religion is, The taking away of sinne, Isaiah the twenty seventh Chapter and the ninth verse, and the specially wayes to take it away, is the Religious use of this Sacrament; which as Christ saith is nothing else, but a seale and signe of his blood that was shed for many for the remission of sinnes, Matthew the twenty sixth Chapter and the twenty eighty verse…Andrewes says,
For the Angell tells the prophet, that his sinnes are not only taken away, but that it is done sacramentally, by the touching of a Cole, even as Christ assureth us, that we obtain remission of sinnes by the receiving of the Cup: Now as in the Sacrament, we consider the Element and the word; so we are to divide this Scripture.The point for Andrewes is that God can use either word or Sacrament but is pleased to take away sins by the touching of the Sacrament to the lips. Andrewes mentions that God can do what He will with His word.
It pleased God to take away the Prophets sinnes by touching his lips. And albeit he can take away our sins, without touching of bread or wine, if he will; yet in the councell of his will, he commandeth unto us the sacramental partaking of his body and blood. It is his will, that our sins shall be taken away by the outward act of the sacrament: The reason is, not only in regard of ourselves, which consists of body and soul, and therefore have need both of bodily and Ghostly meanes, to assure us of our Salvation; but in regard of Christ himself, who is the burning Cole.The following comments by Fr. Kimel are interesting and worth some more research and thought:
As one reads through Short Systematic Theology, one is struck by how untraditional and modern Zahl really is. He jumps from the first century to the sixteenth century reformers and then to twentieth century existentialism. There is little engagement with the Holy Tradition. The Church Fathers have no place in his theology, much less the medieval scholastics or mystics. Zahl is sometimes described as a hyper-Lutheran, because of his strong emphasis on the unconditionality of grace; but this description is only partly true. While grace is the central feature of his theology and is formulated along Lutheran lines, it has been detached from Luther’s incarnational vision and reinterpreted within the iconoclasm of the Swiss reformers. Thus Zahl’s emphatic rejection of Catholic and Orthodox sacramentalism. This rejection is not grounded upon the witness of the Bible. It is a product of Dr. Zahl’s metaphysical commitments and his embrace of a problematic construal of deity.Quoting Martin Luther Fr. Kimel writes,
As Martin Luther declaimed in response to the anti-sacramental gospel of Ulrich Zwingli: “No God like that for me!”It's interesting how often theologians or Reformed Christians embrace strongly Luther's doctrine of grace yet isolate it from his sacramental theology. Can one embrace Luther's doctrine of justification in isolation from his sacramental theology? According to Fr. Kimel, Luther says no. He continues on with the following critique and questions:
All Christians will agree with Dean Zahl that the risen Christ is powerfully present in the event of sacrificial love; but I am almost tempted to say, so what? How does that touch my life? How do I enter into that love? How do I unite myself to my Savior? How am I filled with the Spirit? It is true that every actualization of love, every victory of good over evil, every triumph over injustice and wickedness is a manifestation of the risen Christ. But as Luther might ask, Where is Christ for me? If the risen Jesus is not present in the proclamation of the gospel and its sacramental enactments, if he is not the one who speaks to me the gospel words of promise and who gives himself to me in his eucharistic Body and Blood, then what good is this absent Jesus for me, the incorrigible sinner?This is in response to this quotation by Dr. Zahl provided by Fr. Kimel:
We also understand Jesus to have existed in continuity with the risen Christ. But he is no longer present in the tangible world. He is present neither in sacrament, nor in the words of the Bible, nor in the visual image, nor within his present potential presence arising from the future hope. He is present, rather and only, in the works of love, in the fruit from the belovedness that the gospel story engenders when it grasps us. (p. 49)Leave your thoughts.
As far back as 1920 the Lambeth Conference concluded:Who decides? That's the ultimate question that continues to come back and scream in all of our ears when dealing with all sorts of differences. There are indeed times that individuals decide on issues that are indifferent as we see in Paul's letters to the Romans in the fourteenth chapter. But, concerning the "restraints of truth," who decides? Who decides what is true? The issue of authority is the ISSUE and will always be the issue since it is pride that is the most destructive sin in any and all relationships. The sin of pride affects all of us and is deeply rooted in the depths of the ugly side of humanity. All sorts of questions about the nature and attitude of submission come to my mind when I read stuff like ++Eames' lecture. What does it mean to submit to authority and what attitude does submission display when asked to submit to God or those whom God has given authority? Leave your comments.
"The Churches represented in (the Communion) are indeed independent, but independent with the Christian freedom which recognises the restraints of truth and love. They are not free to deny the truth. They are not free to ignore the fellowship."(1)
The Windsor Report(2) took this question and commented:
"This means that any development needs to be explored for its resonance with the truth, and with the utmost charity on the part of all – charity that grants that a new thing can be offered humbly and with integrity, and charity that might refrain from an action which might harm a sister or brother."
Since the publication of Windsor I have personally given much thought to what all this means for the meaning of 'bonds of affection'. In the course of that consideration I have found myself returning to the whole question of limits to diversity. Are there essentials on which there must be universal acceptance if Provinces are to be in complete communion? Are there issues which diversity protects, on which there can be disagreements, but which are not essential to full communion? If there are to be different levels of essentials or non-essentials in this sense – who decides into which category any action by an individual Church should fall?
Let Us Stand Aloof from Such Heretics. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.
The following passage from Justin Martyr is very early (150 A.D.). He affirms that the bread is the body of Christ and the wine is the blood of Christ.
And this food is called among us the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone.The First Apology of Justin, Chapter LXVI, Of the Eucharist.
2. But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body. For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made. By His own blood he redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, "In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins." And as we are His members, we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.
3. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?--even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that "we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones." He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones,--that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a corn of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God.
Therefore do these men reject the commixture of the heavenly wine, and wish it to be water of the world only, not receiving God so as to have union with Him.Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter I, Paragraph 3
And the angel answered and said unto me: If any man shall have been put into this well of the abyss and it shall have been sealed over him, no remembrance of him shall ever be made in the sight of the Father and His Son and the holy angels. And I said: Who are these, Sir, who are put into this well? And he said to me: They are whoever shall not confess that Christ has come in the flesh and that the Virgin Mary brought him forth, and whoever says that the bread and cup of the Eucharist of blessing are not this body and blood of Christ.
9:1 But concerning the Eucharist, after this fashion give ye thanks.
9:5 And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord hath said concerning this, Give not that which is holy unto dogs.
The following letter from Ignatius is very early (110 A.D.). He affirms that the bread is the body of Christ and the wine is the blood of Christ.Letters of Ignatius to the Philadelphians, Chapter IV, Have but One Eucharist
I have confidence of you m the Lord, that ye will be of no other mind. Wherefore I write boldly to your love, which is worthy of God, and exhort you to have but one faith, and one [kind of] preaching, and one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ; and His blood which was shed for us is one; one loaf also is broken to all [the communicants], and one cup is distributed among them all: there is but one altar for the whole Church, and one bishop, with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants.