Yes I would saying that he would not be an authoritative source in Anglicanism even if his views do match up with some more authoritative source.
Since he was the bishop of London during the founding period, he would seem to be an important figure. My point was that Anglicans, him being one, have used the EOs in their debates against the RC position. Even if he is not a central authority in Anglicanism, it doesn't seem to invalidate my point, because other Anglicans have done this.
Yes I am also aware that the 39 articles allow for spiritual communion. I am sad that it does as I find that to be the wrong view but I understand why it was done at the time.
The Articles directly teach (A) an objective, real Presence like the Lutherans, RCs, and EOs and (B) also deny an objective presence and teach a purely "as if" presence. This is because the English government demanded that the bishops of its state church would come to agreement, and because the government was principally interested in created a unified "Church of England" and less interested in having a consistent theology on these topics.
The Articles teach
A (an objective presence) because the
Preface from King Charles I says about each Article that everyone "shall take it in the literal and grammatical sense." And
Article 28 says: "the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ." The obvious logical conclusion that the bread is literally Christ's Body.
But the Articles
also teach
B (that the presence is purely virtual / part of your spirituality, and denies A). Article 28 specifies that it is a partaking of the Body
"insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same". So if someone does NOT receive the Eucharist with FAITH, then it is NOT the Body for that person. So whether it is or is not Christ's Body depends on that person's faith.
The result is that this underlined part of the Article denies that the food is objectively Christ's Body. This is because if something was objectively Christ's Body, then it would not matter if a person was ignorant of that fact. For instance, in the RC view, it doesn't matter whether a person who takes communion is a secret Atheist in terms of whether that person has just gotten Christ's Body. The priest has just put Christ's Body in that person's mouth whether the Atheist believes it or not. And Lutherans and EOs would say the same thing, because we take it to be objectively Christ's Body.
Another point that
Article 28 makes is
"The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped." I would ask how the writers knew that it was not. We don't have some kind of record from the early Church Fathers denying that Christians carried the Eucharist to the sick or to people who were in their beds. For that matter, lifting up the host seems to be a fairly typical, natural part of Protestant consecrations, as here:
(See Minute 8:00)
The background to this last part of Article 28 (concerning treatment of the host) was that the Anglicans objected to the RC practice of reserving the host and Eucharistic adoration. If the Anglicans imagine that the host is NOT actually Christ's body, then the Anglican objection to the RC adoration practice makes sense.
The underlying Anglican polemic is that people shouldn't reserve the host because it's actually just pieces of bread and there is nothing inherently objectively special about the food sitting on the table.
In contrast, EOs do reserve the host for giving to the sick. We have "Presanctified Liturgies" on some days where the host is consecrated in advance of the service. We carry about the host in the great Entrance, and the priest lifts it up during the consecration. The priest prostrates and bows down before the host.