The views of John Overall on the Eucharist have been partly considered in the case study on Catechisms (1.42).  The additions to the Catechism in 1604 relating to the Eucharist are generally attributed to Overall (Stone, 1909: II, 251).  In answer to the question, ‘Why was the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper ordained?’, the following answer was given:

“For the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive thereby.” (Catechism in the Book of Common Prayer, 1604).

Darwell Stone argues that this answer can be used to justify the opinion that the Eucharist is simply a reminder of Christ’s death and to also justify the opinion that the remembrance of Christ in the Eucharist is a presentation of him before God (Stone, 1909: II, 252).  The answer therefore can be taken to indicate both a realist and a non-realist view of Christ’s sacrifice in relation to the Eucharist.

The three questions in the 1604 catechism relating to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist argue that the outward part of the Eucharist is bread and wine, which the Lord commanded to be received; that the inward part or thing signified is the body and blood of Christ which are ‘verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper’; and that the benefits for the partakers are strengthening and refreshing of the soul by the body and blood of Christ, as the body is strengthened and refreshed by the bread and wine.  It is important to note the wording added to the catechism in 1604 clearly states that body and blood of Christ are received in the Eucharist, but the way in which they are received is not clearly stated.  It could be implied that the body and blood of Christ are received in the sacrament and that Christ is present in the sacrament, in a realist sense, in that the body and blood of Christ is instantiated in the sacrament or in the bread and wine.  Others may conclude from this answer that the bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ are self-enclosed entities which remain separate in a nominalist sense, but that Christ is received by faith or in a heavenly and spiritual sense, without any realist participation of the body and blood of Christ in the earthly Eucharist or the elements of bread and wine.  Stone argues that the possibility of drawing both these conclusions was a deliberate intention of the framer of these words, so as to avoid controversy and so as not to exclude either of the opinions then held on Eucharist (Stone, 1909: II, 252).

Some clue as to Overall’s opinion may be gained by reference to his writing in other works.  In a work entitled Praelectiones seu Disputationes de Patrum et Christi anima et de Antichristo, Overall says:

“In the Sacrament of the Eucharist or the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, are indeed really present, and are really received by us, and are really united to the sacramental signs, as signs which not only signify but also convey, so that in the right use of the Sacrament, and to those who receive worthily, when the bread is given and received, the body of Christ is given and received; and when the wine is given and received, the blood of Christ is given and received; and therefore the whole Christ is communicated in the Communion of the Sacrament.  Yet this is not in a carnal, gross, earthly way by Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation, or any like fictions of human reason, but in a way mystical, heavenly, and spiritual, as is rightly laid down in our Articles.” (Overall, Praelectiones seu Disputationes de Patrum et Christi anima et de Antichristo, quoted in Stone, 1909: II, 252-253).

This passage argues for a moderate realist presence of Christ in the Eucharist and in the bread and wine of the Eucharist and that the ‘whole Christ’ is really present and received.  The body and blood of Christ is said to be ‘united’ to the bread and wine and ‘conveyed’ to the receiver by them.  When bread and wine are given and received, the body and blood of Christ are given and received also.  Overall’s words are compatible with the moderate realism advanced by this project, suggesting that the nature of Christ’s body and blood are instantiated in the bread and wine of the Eucharist.  Immoderate or any ‘carnal, gross, earthly’ presence are excluded.  The meaning of the words ‘whole Christ’, which Overall says is present in the Eucharist, in the receiver and in the bread and wine, do not therefore refer to any fleshy presence or immoderate presence of Christ in the Eucharist or in the elements.  ‘Whole Christ’ could therefore be interpreted in the sense of the nature of Christ’s body and blood, being thereby distinct from any fleshy body and blood.  The presence of Christ in the Eucharist for Overall therefore, seems to be a real presence, given and received in the Eucharist and the elements, and so one of moderate realism.