William Beveridge cites both Scripture and the Fathers in the expression of his views on the Eucharist.  He says:

“Scripture and fathers holding forth so clearly that whosoever worthily receives the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper doth certainly partake of the body and blood of Christ.” (Beveridge, The Theological Works, edn. Bliss, 1843-1848: VII, 470).

At the same time he denies that:

“the bread and wine which is used in the Sacrament is the very body that was crucified on the cross and that the wine after consecration the very blood that gushed out of His pierced side.” (Beveridge, The Theological Works, edn. Bliss, 1843-1848: VII, 470).

For Beveridge the words ‘This is my body’ suggest that the bread is a sign or sacrament of his body and in no way suggest a real change into his body.  Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist can therefore only be present “in a figurative or sacramental sense” with “His body only represented by the bread” to the effect that what “we eat at the Sacrament is bread, and not the very body of Christ”.  It is therefore “only after a spiritual, not after a corporal manner, that the body and blood of Christ are received and eaten in the Sacrament.” (Beveridge, The Theological Works, edn. Bliss, 1843-1848: VII, 475).  For these reasons Beveridge opposes both reservation and adoration of the sacrament (Beveridge, The Theological Works, edn. Bliss, 1843-1848: VII, 478).

While Beveridge affirms that those who receive the sacrament partake of the body and blood of Christ, he is firm in his rejection of any immoderate sense of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist.  The means for the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist is spiritual presence. 

In his discussion of sacrifice, Beveridge distinguishes between sacrifice and sacrament.  He argues that:

“in a Sacrament God offereth something to man, but in a sacrifice man offers something to God.  What is offered in a sacrifice is wholly or in part destroyed, but what is offered in a Sacrament still remaineth.  And there being so great a difference betwixt the one and the other, if it be a Sacrament it is not a sacrifice, and if it be a sacrifice it is not a Sacrament, it being impossible it should be a both a Sacrament and a sacrifice too.” (Beveridge, The Theological Works, edn. Bliss, 1843-1848: VII, 505).

Having argued in this way, Beveridge admits that the Fathers of the Church did call the Eucharist a sacrifice, but that this is not in the sense of a true and proper sacrifice, “but only the commemoration or representation of that one true and proper sacrifice offered up by Christ Himself” (Beveridge, The Theological Works, edn. Bliss, 1843-1848: VII, 509).  It seems that Beveridge is distinguishing between the idea of a fleshy sacrifice (immoderate) offered once upon the cross, and a commemorative or representative sacrifice offered in the Eucharist (moderate).

In discussing The Catechism, Beveridge also speaks of the Eucharist, saying:

“The outward part or sign of this Sacrament is only bread and wine, which the Lord commanded to be received, that is, to be received into our bodies. … But the inward part, or thing signified by that sign in the Lord’s Supper, is ‘the body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper’. … He [that is, our Lord] plainly signified that what He now gave them to eat and drink, He would have them look upon it and receive it, not as common bread and wine, but as His body and blood, the one broken, the other as shed, for their sins.  Which therefore are not in show and appearance but verily and indeed (according to the sense wherein the Lord instituting the Sacrament spoke those words) taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper; by the faithful, even by all such, and only such, as believe the Gospel, and what our Lord said, and accordingly receive what he now gives them with a true faith.  Which being ‘the substance of things hoped for’ as well as ‘the evidence of things not seen’, it causeth that which our Lord said, and what they therefore hope for and receive upon His word, to subsist really and effectually in them, to all intents and purposes to which the body and blood of Christ can possibly be communicated and received. … Though the thing signified in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper be the body and blood of Christ, yet it is not received, as the sign is, into our bodies only, but into our souls.  It is the inward and spiritual part in the Sacrament, and therefore hath respect only to the inward and spiritual part of him that receives it. … Our souls are strengthened by the body and blood of Christ received by faith in this Sacrament, because by this means we have Christ Himself to dwell in our hearts by faith.” (Beveridge, The Theological Works, edn. Bliss, 1843-1848: VIII, 119-121).

Here Beveridge speaks of a presence of Christ in the Eucharist which is moderate but at the same time clearly spiritual. 

He also speaks of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist in this way:

“When we hear the words of consecration repeated as they came from our Lord’s own mouth, … we are then steadfastly to believe that, although the substance of the bread and wine still remain, yet now it is not common bread and wine as to its use, but the body and blood of Christ in that sacramental sense wherein he spake the words, insomuch that whosoever receives these His creatures of bread and wine according to Christ’s holy institution in remembrance of His death and passion are partakers of His most precious body and blood, as it is expressed in the prayer of consecration.” (Beveridge, The Theological Works, edn. Bliss, 1843-1848: VII, 547).

For Beveridge there is no change in the substance of the bread and wine, yet they are not merely common bread and wine, but distinguished from other bread and wine by their use, and indeed for those who receive them, they are the body and blood of Christ, although this presence is not in any immoderate or fleshy sense.

When Beveridge speaks of sacrifice in relation to the Eucharist, he denies that there is any propitiatory sacrifice, but affirms that Christ’s sacrifice is shown in the Eucharist.  He says:

“The Apostle doth not say that Christ’s death is repeated, or that He is offered up again every time this Sacrament is administered, but only that the Lord’s death is shown by it.  And therefore, that this is not, as the papists absurdly imagine, a ‘propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead’, but only ‘commemorative’ and ‘declarative’ of that one sacrifice which Christ once offered to be a propitiation for the sins of the whole world.” (Beveridge, The Theological Works, edn. Bliss, 1843-1848: VIII, 534).

In speaking of those who partake of the Lord’s Supper, he says:

“It is to them that body which was broken, and that blood which was shed, for their sins: they receive it as such upon Christ’s word, and accordingly partake of all the merits of it, whereby their sins are fully remitted to them as if they themselves had already undergone all the punishments which the law had threatened against them; for Christ having undergone them all in their stead, and He having now communicated that body and blood in which He did it unto them, and they having by faith accordingly received it, the law is now satisfied as to them, and can no more require that they should suffer the punishments which were due to their sins to their sins than it can require that Christ’s body and blood, which they have received, should be broken and shed again for them.” (Beveridge, The Theological Works, edn. Bliss, 1843-1848: VIII, 547).

Beveridge denies any immoderate realism in relation to sacrifice in the Eucharist.  The sacrifice of Christ is not repeated in the Eucharist, but Christ’s death is shown in the Eucharist and the merits of that sacrifice are received by those who partake.  Beveridge’s argument in relation to sacrifice in the Eucharist is that of moderate realism, expressed using the notions of memorial remembrance or anamnesis.

When he speaks of the action of distributing the bread and wine in the context of the Eucharist, Beveridge also speaks in a very realist sense, but still maintains the moderate degree.  He says:

“When we see the minister distributing the sacramental bread and wine to the several communicants, we are then by faith to look upon our Lord as offering His blessed body and blood and all the benefits of His death to all that will receive them at His hands, entertaining ourselves all the while others are receiving these or suchlike meditations: Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world!  Behold the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father, who loved us and gave Himself for us, who Himself bare our sins in His own body on the tree, and washed us from them in His own blood! … Methinks I see Him yonder going about by His minister from one to another, and offering His most blessed body and blood with all the merits of His most precious death to all that will receive them faithfully.” (Beveridge, The Theological Works, edn. Bliss, 1843-1848: VIII, 547).

There is a strong sense of realism in this passage – so strong it seems that the author perceives that he can see the Lord himself going about the distribution ‘offering His most blessed body and blood with all the merits of His most precious death’.  In the context of the Eucharist there is an offering of Christ’s body and blood and the showing forth of the merits of his death.  Taken in the full context of Beveridge’s other writing on the Eucharist, these words can hardly be interpreted as immoderate.  Perhaps it is a mystical sense that is prompting these words.  If this is the case then the realism here is moderate in degree.  Christ is really present and the merits of his death are shown, but this is done mystically and spiritually, not in a fleshy sense of presence and not with any idea of a re-iteration of the sacrifice of the cross.  This is confirmed when Beveridge says:

“When it comes to our turns to receive it, then we are to lay aside all thoughts of bread and wine and minister and everything else that is or can be seen, and fix our faith, as it is ‘the evidence of things not seen’, wholly and solely upon our blessed Saviour as offering us His own body and blood, … steadfastly believing it to be, as our Saviour said, ‘His body and blood’, ‘which’, as our Church teacheth us, ‘are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper’, by which means, whatsoever it is to others, it will be to us who receive it with such a faith the body and blood of Christ our Saviour, the very ‘substance of all things hoped for’, upon account of His body that was broken, and His blood that was shed, for us.” (Beveridge, The Theological Works, edn. Bliss, 1843-1848: VIII, 547).

In regard to kneeling for the receiving of communion, Beveridge says:

“Our Church requireth us to receive the Holy Sacrament kneeling, not out of respect to the creatures of bread and wine, but to put us in mind that Almighty God, our Creator and Redeemer, the only object of all religious worship, is there specially present, offering His own body and blood to us.” (Beveridge, The Theological Works, edn. Bliss, 1843-1848: VIII, 604).

Beveridge affirms that in the Eucharist in the bread and wine, Christ is specially present.  This presence is not an immoderate or fleshy presence, but a moderate, spiritual, yet real presence.  In the Eucharist the body and blood of Christ is offered to those who come to receive.  Once again this is not an immoderate sense of presence or offering, but a moderate one.  For Beveridge those who receive the bread and wine at the Eucharist, feed spiritually on the body and blood of Christ.