If you listen to certain neo-Puritan types, the Homilies as formularies are on the same footing, authoritatively speaking, as the Articles and Prayer Book. But no one in his right mind thinks that a preacher's opinion can have the same authority as a confession or creed. No Continental Reformer ever thought that, but somehow our neo-Puritan friends differ from those Continental Reformers whom they hold in highest regard. Here's what Browne said about the Homilies:
All writers on the subject have agreed, that the kind of assent, which we are here called on to give to them, is general, not specific. We are not expected to express full concurrence with every statement, or every exposition of Holy Scripture contained in them, but merely in the general to approve of them, as a body of sound and orthodox discourses, and well adapted for the time for which they were composed. For instance we cannot be required to call the Apocrypha by the name of Holy Scripture, or to quote it as of Divine authority, because we find it so in the Homilies. We cannot be expected to think it a very cogent argument for the duty of fasting, that thereby we may encourage the fisheries and strengthen the seaport towns against foreign invasion. And perhaps we may agree with Dr. Hey, rather than with Bp. Burnet, and hold, that a person may fairly consider the Homilies to be a sound collection of religious instruction, who might yet shirk from calling the Roman Catholics idolaters. The Homilies are, in fact, semi-authoritative documents...