The Homilies were written as a temporary measure to ensure orthodox teaching at a time when few preachers had the learning or capability to preach and when the government had the wish to suppress unapproved teaching (Bicknell, 1963: 320).  The First Book of Homilies (12 in number) [The Elizabethan Homilies, Online] was written in 1547 and ordered by rubric in the 1549 BCP to be read after the Nicene Creed, if no sermon was preached (Ketley, 1844: 79).  The same rubric was ordered in the 1552 BCP (Ketley, 1844: 268) and in the 1559 BCP (Clay, 1847: 183).  The Forty-Two Articles of 1553 refer to The First Book of Homilies being “set out by the king’s authority” and that they “be godly and wholesome, containing doctrine to be received of all men” (Article XXXIV of The Forty-Two Articles of 1553, in Ketley, 1844: 535).  The Second Book of Homilies (21 in number) [The Elizabethan Homilies, Online] was ratified by Elizabeth I in 1563 (Stone, 1909: II, 213) and a last Homily was added in 1571 (Bicknell, 1963: 320).  The 1662 BCP included the same rubric concerning the use of the homilies after the Nicene Creed and affirmed in The Thirty-Nine Articles that both books of homilies “contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine” (1662 BCP, Article XXXV).  The two books of homilies “are of interest and importance as showing the kind of teaching which Elizabethan divines wished English Church people to receive.” (Stone, 1909: II, 214).

Two homilies in The Second Book of Homilies make particular mention of matters relevant to the Eucharist.  In a homily entitled Homily on Common Prayer and Sacraments [Online] the following comments are found:

[Sacraments are] “ … a visible sign of an invisible grace, that is to say, that setteth out to the eyes and other outward senses, the inward working of God’s free mercy, and doth (as it were) seal in our hearts the promises of God.” Homily on Common Prayer and Sacraments, 1 [Online].

The important point to note here is that the homily refers to a visible sign (the bread and wine in the case of the Eucharist) and an invisible grace (Christ’s body and blood).  The outward sign ‘setteth out to the eyes and other outward senses’ the thing not seen.  There is no sense here of an empty sign since the invisible is seen to be set out in the visible.  This seems to suggest moderate realism where the body and blood of Christ is instantiated in the bread and wine, not corporally, but in the sense of the nature of Christ’s body and blood.

In another homily entitled Homily on the Worthy Receiving of the Sacrament [Online] there is a clear denial of any form of immoderate realism, stating that there is “no other sacrifice, or oblation”, Homily on the Worthy Receiving of the Sacrament, 3 [Online] in the Eucharist and that there is no earthly, bodily or carnal substance present in the eating and drinking, Homily on the Worthy Receiving of the Sacrament, 4 [Online].  Clearly carnal notions of the presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist are denied.  There is however, a clear affirmation that the receiving in the Eucharist is by faith, Homily on the Worthy Receiving of the Sacrament 2, 4 [Online].  Despite all this, it is affirmed that the Eucharist “is the public celebration of the memory of his precious death at the Lord’s table”, Homily on the Worthy Receiving of the Sacrament, 1 [Online].  It is also affirmed that in the Eucharist “there is no vain ceremony, no bare sign, no untrue figure of a thing absent”, Homily on the Worthy Receiving of the Sacrament 3 [Online].  What is sought in the Eucharist is described as ‘meat’, with the homily saying:

“It is well known that the meat we seek for in this Supper, is spiritual food, the nourishment of our souls, a heavenly refection …”, Homily on the Worthy Receiving of the Sacrament, 4 [Online].

In relation to receiving, the homily says:

“ … at this table we receive not only the outward sacrament, but the spiritual thing also: not the figure, but the truth: not the shadow only, but the body …”  Homily on the Worthy Receiving of the Sacrament 4, [Online].

Clearly the homily is suggesting that more is received than the outward sign.  The inward is also received and this is referred as ‘the spiritual thing’, ‘the truth’ and ‘the body’.  Such language is suggestive of moderate realism, where the body and blood of Christ is received (note the homily does not say present) in a spiritual manner and not carnally.  The manner of the receiving is by faith where when a person goes up to the Communion:

“thou look up with faith upon the holy body and blood of they God, thou marvel with reverence, thou touch it with the mind, thou receive it with the hand of thy heart, and thou take it with thy inward man.” Homily on the Worthy Receiving of the Sacrament , 4 [Online].

Logically it would seem that if the ‘spiritual thing’, ‘the truth’ and ‘the body’ are received, then they must also be present.  It is the manner of the presence that deserves special attention.  The homily does not however specify the manner of the presence, only that the inward grace is received.  There is an echo here of the spiritual lifting of the mind and heart to the heavenly presence, although this is not so strongly put as it is in the writings of Thomas Cranmer’s Defence and Answer.  The homily does seem however, to present a stronger case for a spiritual real presence (moderate realism) than some other Reformation writers such as Cranmer.  There are definite suggestions that the presence is in the Eucharist.

Stone concludes in analysing this homily that:

“It is probable that the writer of the Homily believed that faithful communicants receive the body and blood of Christ present in their Communion with spiritual reality.  Whether he held also that the body and blood are present in the consecrated elements before Communion it seems impossible to say.  Nor can it be determined whether in the denials of sacrifice he meant to deny any doctrine of the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, or only those ideas which were perversions of the doctrine.” (Stone, 1909: II, 215).

There are certainly parts of the homily which suggest a moderate realism, e.g. “not the shadow only, but the body” Homily on the Worthy Receiving of the Sacrament, 4 [Online], but there are others which suggest moderate nominalism, e.g. the talk of receiving but not presence; and the looking up with faith.  Stone’s careful assessment seems fair.