Thank you, Anglican74. I agree with you that I haven't heard anyone on the forum yet claim that the Articles oppose belief in the real presence in bread, or to put it another way, Christ being objectively or directly in the bread. To me what Mockingbird is saying does not oppose that belief, which he phrases as the bread being in Jesus. And please understand that what you are saying is what I understand the view of the early Church to be, what I would prefer to see in the Articles' position, and what I think can be found in the Articles. But at the same time I want to understand the Articles as a whole and as they really are, independent of my own preferences. To answer your question about what else one needs besides the intelligent commentary that Christina pointed to, I think one would have to also consider the views of Anglican scholars who take the opposite view in order to check it. How might one address the fact that the earliest commentaries most contemporary to the Articles interpret them to disagree with belief in a direct presence in the bread itself? I would expect that commentaries written in the same era as the Articles, especially by important Anglican theologians or published by important Anglican institutions of their time would have a good, contemporary understanding of their authors' views. The Articles were passed in their final form in 1571 with the addition of Article 29. An Anglo-Catholic writer, WIlliam Tighe, notes how this came about: http://www.theanglocatholic.com/201...s-a-confessional-standard-for-anglicans-today Rodgers' 1586 commentary on the Articles says about Articles 28-29: Bp. Gilbert Burnet proposes in his 1699 commentary on Articles 28 that the Greek fathers originally said that the Eucharistic elements were figures of Christ but that later the Greek Church , especially at the Seventh Council at Nice, declared it to be the "true body of Christ". As I understand it and as some Anglicans have told me, "symbols" and "figures" are not actually exclusive of reality. That is, something could be both the true body and be a symbol. Bp. Burnett next writes that God is everywhere and so God is in the elements of the Eucharist too. He says that the elements aren't to be reserved because Christ did not say to do that and that the command to "Take, eat" means that they are only a sacrament when they are given and received. He adds about Article 29: Anglican John Ellis also took the Articles to oppose Christ's body itself being directly in the elements in his 1700 Defense of the Articles: Would you know of any commentaries on the Articles from 1571-1700 that support belief in a real presence of Christ's body directly or objectively in the bread itself?