Do memorialists oppose the Westminster Confession's explanation of real presence?

Many denominations affirm the doctrine of the [real presence of Christ in communion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_presence_of_Christ_in_the_Eucharist) , that in the communion Christ is in some sense really present in a way that is distinct from his general presence in the world and the church. In contrast, [memorialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorialism) is the position that communion is a purely symbolic act of remembrance, such that Christ is not present any more than usual. Different denominations have different versions of the doctrine of real presence. The Westminster Confession explains the Reformed Protestant version of real presence as follows: > WCF 29.7: Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed,  yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death:  the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine;  yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance,   as the elements themselves are to their outward senses. This seems to me to be quite a measured statement: far from the doctrines of trans/con-substantiation, and emphasising that the benefits of Christ's death are only received by faith. So do memorialists actually oppose this version of real presence, as explained in the Westminster Confession? If so, what exegetical or theological arguments lead them to reject it?