Romanists arguments for their faith the Romanists doctrin about infallibility not divine but as it were divine the Romanists tenet about fundamentals the Romanists motives of credibility the Romanists doctrin about the material and formal object of faith c. For all this and several such like talk is but the theological discours of that Catholik Gentleman and of it self no Romanists doctrin at all For I know well enough what Stillingfleet means and would have meant by Romanists doctrin And all his Protestant readers understand therby only Catholik religion and he knows it well enough I should take it ill and be sorry and look upon it as an injury to the Church of God if any one should call my way of defending her faith the Romanists way or my talk the Romanists doctrin however the thing it self defended or excused by me is Roman or Catholik faith The Church has no one way but several methods and several schools and several wayes to declare and explicate and defend her religion And every writer does it according to his personall endowments and judgment some better some wors though the religion so explicated defended and declared be still and ever one and the very same And if indeed I had been to speak in that busines I should never have made any such argument as that Catholik Gentleman did nor will another man think himself obliged to discours as I do although he and I defend both of us the same thing This if Mr. Stillingfleet consider as he ought he will soon perceiv his own pittiful childishnes But thus Doctour OeN dealt with me to my very great pitty and regret Ever and anon Is this your Roman doctrin quoth he ' Who would have thought that the Romish Church should dare to utter so wicked blasphemies c. First misinterpreting my words and calling that a doctrin which was none at all but only a prosopopy of atheistical objections and then stiling that a Roman doctrin which was but the talk of a particular man So that what he called Roman doctrin and Romish doctrin was neither Romish nor doctrin neither But ministers care not what they say And so much the more wary does it behove all men to be who deal with them Too much care cannot be taken with such men who either cannot or will not distinguish between general faith and particular mens doctrin between religion and several school-methods of defending it between the faith of the whole Church of God and discourses of writers concerning it So ignorant they are all of them or wilfully malicious I find in my heart even a longing desire to expres to you in particular the various shifts and misdemeanours of Stillingfleet But here is now no time or place for it and such a thing if it were done would be but of little use to morrow I mention him only to let you know how much the French Hugonot religion begins here to prevail by means of Whitby Stillingfleet and others to the overthrow of our own Protestant Church here establisht and to let posterity who shall haply see any of these small writings have some little glimmerings of these our present times They doubtles will be glad to see the general cours of things now done even as we are to read the wayes of former reformers although neither we nor they can take any great pleasur in any long particular narrations of their fallacies either against logick or morality when the men are once past and gone Dr. Jeremy Taylor hath also put forth lately a very bitter insulting injurious book against Catholik religion which he calls a Disswasive from Popery Reddet illi dominus secundum opera ejus And God will bless his Catholik beleevers who trust in him and walk according to their holy rule in his fear and love unblamable the very contumelies of adversaries working at length to their greater good And I beseech God who revives all things and Jesus our Lord who gave his testimony under Pontius Pilate a good confession that they may ever observ the commandments of God and the Church his Spous possessing their souls in perfect patience unreprovable unto the coming of Jesus Christ our Lord whom in his own times will the blessed God shew forth the only potent one the King of kings and Lord of Lords who alone hath immortality and inhabits light inaccessible whom no mortal man hath ever seen nor yet can see him to whom be all honour domimion and power for evermore Amen This is the earnest desire and prayer of Sir Your real friend Given in the Nones of March 1664. J. V. C. EPISTOLA AD AMPHIBOLUM AGAINST Dr. Taylor The occasion of this Epistle THe first epistle was written to an adversary the second to a friend this third to a neuter who after he had began to think more moderately of Catholik religion returned upon his reading of Dr. Jeremy Taylor his Disswasive from Popery to his former misconceit And he is by this Epistle given to understand that the said Disswasive is of that nature that it can have no such force upon any judicious man Sermo Horatianus inter Davum Herum D. I Amdudum ausculto cupiens tibi dicere servus Pauca reformido H. Davusne D. It a Davus amicum Mancipium Domino frugi quod sit satis hoc est Ut vitale putes H. Age libertate Decembri Quando ita majores voluerunt utere Narra D. Pars hominum vitiis gaudet constanter urget Propositum pars multa natat modo recta capessens Interdum pravis obnoxia H. Non dices hodie quorsum haec tam putida tendunt Furcifer D. Ad te inquam H. Quo pacto pessime D. Laudas Fortunam mores antiquae plebis idem Si quis ad illa Deus subitò te agat usque recuses Aut quia non sentis quod clamas rectius esse Aut quia non firmus rectum defendis haeres Nequicquam coeno cupiens evellere plantam Non horam tecum esse potes non otia recte Ponere teque ipsum vitas fugitivus erro H. Unde mihi lapides D. Quorsum est opus H. Unde sagittas Aut insanit homo aut versus facit Ocyus hinc te Ni rapis accedes opera agro nona Dunano III. Epistola ad Amphibolum against Doctour Taylor SIR YOu were pleased to say upon your reading of Flat Lux that Popery may for ought you knew be more innocent then commonly it is reputed and no wayes so odious as some would make it But now upon the reading of Dr. Taylor 's Disswasive which you desire me to peruse I perceiv you look towards your former thoughts concerning this maligned Popery and invite them home again To deal freely with you I was amazed my self at the reading of that book though not Sir with your amazement but another of my own You startled at Popery whole uglines was there set before your eyes with such fresh colours I at
this deluge of Goths and Vandals But why do I expostulate with you who write these things not to judicious readers but fools and children who are not more apt to tell a truth then beleev a ly But what follows next Towards the beginning of this lurry say you were the Brittons extirpated by the Saxes who in after-times received Austin from Rome a man very little acquainted with the Gospel Here 's the thanks good S. Austin hath who out of his love and tendernes to our nations welfare after so long and tedious journeys entred upon the wild forrest of our paganisme with great hazards and inexpressible sufferings of hunger cold and other corporal inconveniences to communicate Christ Jesus and his life and grace unto our nation After this say you religion daily more and more declined till the Reformation rose This is the sum of your story which if I like not I may thank my self say you for putting you in minde of it Indeed Sir it is so fals and defamatory and loaden with foul language not only against all nations ages and people of all conditions but against the honour of sacred gospel it self which must utterly dye and have no life or power in the world for so many ages together that I think neither I or any els can like it that bears any respect either to religion modesty or truth You say in this your chapter that I am better at telling a tale then mannaging an argument But I shall now beleev that you are equally good at both Popery then is nothing but vice and Protestancy is all vertue I would we could see where this Protestancy dwells 13 ch from page 262. to 278. Your thirteenth chapter takes up my three following paragraffs about the history of religion wherein after that according to your wonted manner you tell me that I do not my self understand what this thing that thing the other thing means altho it be part of my own discours you say at length that ther is no such matter as I speak make another story of your own of the same mettle with your former imposing afresh upon popery by which I do not indeed know what you mean a wain-load of adulteries drunkennes atheisme poisonings avarice pride cruelties tumults blasphemy rebellions wars crimes and yet threatning to fay if you should chance to be provoked far harder things then these Sir may no man provoke a wasp nor force you to your harder things You are a terrible man of arms But if this be the right character of Popery which here and elswhere up and down your book you give us I tell you first it will be a difficult matter to know in what age or place popery most reigns secondly that it is a thing I am so far from excusing that I wish it back to the pit of hell from whence it issued thirdly that Roman catholiks if you be indeed against this popery are all on your side for to my knowledg their religion is as opposite to it as light to darknes or God to Belial lastly that you need not be so tenderly fearful for the spreading of popery for honest men will be ready to stone him that teaches it and knaves hypocrites adulterers traitors theeves drunkards atheists rebels if you have given a right description of poperty are all Papists already these need no conversion the other will by no rhetorick be moved to it Indeed you fright us all from papistry For though som love iniquity as it is gainful or pleasursom and must needs suffee for it when they are condemned at the sessions and cannot avoid it yet is no man willing to suffer either loss of goods or imprisonment death or banishment for the bare name of popery that hath neither good nor gain in it In a word wicked men will act your popery but not own it And they which own a popery which I see you are not acquainted withall will not only dislike others but hate themselvs if through any frailty or passion they should ever fall into any article of your Popery here described Good Sir take heed of blaspheming that innocent Catholik flock which the Angels of God watch over to protect them Be afraid to curs them whom God hath blessed or impose that upon their Religion which it detests 14 ch from page 278. to 286. Your fourteenth chapter which is upon my title of Discovery labours to show that som of the contradictions which I mentioned in Fiat Lux to be put upon popery are no contradictions at all and labour may Well Sir although slanders put upon them be never so contradictory and opposite yet must they have patience All is true enough if it be but bad enough While our Kings reign in peace then the Papists religion is persecuted as contrary to monarchy when we have destroyed that government then is the papist harassed spoiled pillaged murdered becaus their religion is wholly addicted to monarchy and papists are all for Kings Have not these things been done over and over within the space of a few years here lately in England All men now alive have been eye-witnesses of it These things as put upon papists ceas to be contradictions And if they should be contradictions both parts are therfor true in our countrey logick becaus they are put upon papists Is there not something of the power of darknes in this One latin word of mine which shuts up that my paragraff of Discovery Ejice ancillam cum puero suo becaus I english it not you translate it for me or rather interpret it Bannish all men out of England but Papists this according to your gloss must be my meaning And you seem to exult that Fiat Lux who in outward show pretends so much moderation should let fall a word that betrayes no little mischief in his heart Good Lord whither does passion hurry mans spirit All that period of mine in the end of the foresaid § is but meerly coppied out of one of Saint Pauls letters which he wrote to the Galatians the fourth chapter of that Epistle wherein those very words alluding to a passage in Moses his pentateuch are exprest Do you either read in your English Bible Bannish all men out of England or understand any such meaning of Ejice ancillam cum puero suo Gal. 4. 30. Pray peruse the ten last verses of that chapter attentively and see if I have not in my discours so coppied out their meaning and very words too so far as it behooved that I have done nothing els Abraham had two sons saith St. Paul one of a handmaid the other of a free woman c. These things are an allegory c. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the spirit even so it is now But what saith the scriptur Cast out the bondwoman with her son for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman c. Pray tell
me soberly Did the apostle mean by those words Cast out the Bond-woman with her son that the sons of Ishmael should be put to the sword or banisht out of their kingdom Now pray hear my discours which I coppied out of that original If my reader here be cautious he may easily discern a reason why all these sects are so boisterous one against another and every one of them against the Roman catholik Ismael disturbed the whole hous and was ever quarrelling and bustling against Isaac The reason is the same both here and there Ismael was a natural son and Isaac the legitimate heir And natural sons be generally seditious violent and clamorous As Ismael therfor was Isaac his natural brother so is a Protestant Minister but the by-blow of a catholick Priest the Presbyterian likewise to him and so forward till you com to the Quaker who was begot by a delusion and brought into the world by a fright his hand is against every man and every mans hand against him The remedy and only means of peace is Ejice ancillam cum puero suo These be my words out of S. Paul and what is his meaning the same is mine But you will have me in spight of my teeth becaus I speak nothing but good still to mean som evil I thought S. Paul had meant by those words if I must needs discover my understanding to you that the peaceable Isaacs were the only sons of Gods promised love and favour the inheritance of which blessing boisterous Ishmaels can never work out to themselvs by all their persecutions and bustling contentions And according to this meaning I concluded that to consider and think seriously of this were the only remedy and means of peace amongst us here in England Ejice ancillam cum puero suo is an antidote against all contentions emulations which are a suspicious mark not of an elect but of a reprobate But whatever I say I must neither think nor mean but what you will have me to do and that shall still be somthing that is odious An emblem hereof was the rod of Moses which in Moses hand was a walking-staff but out of it a serpent 15 ch from page 286 to 304. In your fifteenth chapter upon my paragraff of Messach you are in a mighty plunge what this Messach should be and what the ctimology of that word Latin it is not greek it is not and you are sure it is not hebrew surely it is say you some uncouth word like that of the Gnosticks Paldabaoth Alas good Sir it is English a pure English word used here in England all the Saxons time and som hundred years after the conquest till the French monosyllable had by little and little worn out the last syllable of the word And you may find it yet in the old Saxon laws which I have read my self those especially of King Ina if I rightly remember the name which be yet extant wherin strict care and provision is made that a due reverence be kept by all people in the Church all the time of their Messach which now we call Mess or Mass. Then having laughed at my admiration of catholik Service you carp at me for saying that the first Christians were never called together to hear a sermon and to convince me you bring som places out of S. Pauls Epistles and the Acts which commend the ministery of the word This indeed is your usual way of refuting my speeches you flourish copiously in that which is not at all against me and never apply it to my words lest it should appear as it is impertinent I deny not that people were by Gods word converted or that converts were further instructed or that the preaching of Gods word is good and useful many wayes but that which I say is that primitive Christians were never called together for that end as the great work of their Christianity This I have so clearly proved both in the second dialogue of the Reclaimed Papist and also in the foresaid paragraff of Messach that you divert from that to declaim of the necessity and excellency of preaching and bring neither text nor reason that may reach to my words at all You go on and wonder much that we should hear nothing in scriptur of this Christian sacrifice is any such were Sir you will neither hear nor see But say you the passion of our Lord is our Christian sacrifice Do not I say so too But that this incruent sacrifice was instituted by the same Lord before his death to figur out daily before our eyes that passion of his which was then approaching in commemoration of his death so long as the world should last this tho I plainly speak it you take no notice of it But the Judaical sacrifice say you is said by the Apostle in his Epistle to the Hebrews in this to differ from the sacrifice of Christians that ours was don but once theirs often It is true the sacrifice of our Lords passion of which the apostle in that whole discours only treats in opposition to that of bulls and goats was so don but once that it could not be don twice But as the sacrifices of the old law were instituted by almighty God to be often iterated before the passion of the Messias for a continual exercise of religion so did the same Lord for the very same purpos of religious exercise institute another to be iterated after his death unto which it were to have reference when it should be past as the former had to the same death when it was to com And it hath a reference so much the more excellent as that it doth by the almighty power of the same Messias exhibit to the faith of his beleevers that very true real body as crucified amongst us wherof the former Mosaical sacrifices gave meerly a shadow Did not our Lord do this Were not the apostles according to this rite 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sacrificing to our great Lord God when S. Paul was by imposition of hands segregated from the laiety for his divine service as I clearly in that my paragraff evince out of the history of the Acts of the apostles No say you the apostles were not then about any sacrifice but only preaching Gods word or som such thing to the people in the name and behalf of God But Sir is this to be in earnest or to jest The sacred text sayes they were sacrificing to our Lord liturgying and ministring to him You say They were not sacrificing to God but only preaching to the people And now the question is whether you or I more rightly understand that Apostolicall book For my sence and meaning I have all antiquity as well as the plain words of sacred text you have neither 16 ch from page 304 to 313. Your sixteenth chapter upon my paragraff of the Virgin Mary which is you say the most disingenious of all my book is spent in an invective against calumnies which
his many filthy adulteries drunkennesses cheats slanders murders or the like although by Gods grace he should find mercy at his last hour These if I could stand to enlarge my self upon them being themselves Christian Traditions and Apostolical doctrin might in som sence be said to be the grounds of expiatory penalties after this life commonly called Purgatory But those others which your Disswader mentions are but som congruities latelier put together by Doctours to clear unto unstable Christians as far as they may be able the rationality of their Christian Tradition concerning expiations after this life which Preachers in their sermons and Doctoars in their chairs usually invent and utter as well in this affair as other businesses of faith som with more firmitude and som with less according to their learning and capacity I say they are congruities for it and good ones too but no grounds of it For faith is not deduced by reasons or drawn from premises or concluded from grounds And although this faith be manifold and about sundry matters as the Creation Redemption Justification Resurrection and the like yet all these particular faiths depend immediately like several raies on one sun upon the one only authority and truth of the first Revealer which is the foundation and ground of all And if those above-named affections be no grounds of this faith concerning future expiations much less is that true and firm tradition Blessed are those that dye in our Lord any ground against it For they are happy and happy that ever they were born who dye in our Lord that is to say in his faith and fear in his love and grace But ther are as many degrees of dying in our Lord as ther be varieties of the lives and actions of those that dye in him And they all rest from the labours of this life and som also are freed from the pains of the other who depart hence in a more complete reconciliation with him §. 5. Which is about Transubstantiation Sayes that Transubstantiation is another novelty in the Roman Church so much a novelty that we know the very time of its birth and how it was introduced For Scotus Occam Biel Fisher Bassolis Cajetan Melchior Caen acknowledg that it is not exprest in Scripture and in Peter Lombards time they knew not whether it was true or no. Durandus a good Catholik after the Lateran Councel where it was first declared said it was not faith as Scotus sayes it was no faith before it Nor did the Lateran Councel determin that which now the Roman Church holds which doctrin of theirs is a stranger to antiquity as Alphonsus à Castro acknowledges and the same is made good by the testimonies of Tertallian Justin Martyr Eusebius Macarius Ephrem Gregory Nazianzen Chrysostom Austin the Canon law it self Theodoret and Pope Gelasius who all witness that the bread is our Lords body spiritually And your Disswader therfor advises his charge to take heed they be not led away by rhetorical words to beleev the Roman doctrin which is an innovation and dangerous practice about which they make many foolish questions as whether a mouse may run away with her maker whether a Priest is the Creatour of God c. In fine Transubstantiation is absolutely impossible For Christs glorious body cannot be broken nor yet the mere accidents nor one body multiplied as be many wafers and it is against the demonstration of our sences Sir I know well enough that Tertullian Justin Martyr Eusebius Macarius Ephrem Gregory Nazianzen Theodoret Chrysostom and S. Austin were all of them not only Roman Catholiks but Catholik priests too and could easily prove it But if your Disswader should have the confidence to deny that I hope yet he will grant me that Scotus Occham Biel Bassolis Cajetan Melchior Caen Durand and Alphonsus à Castro Papish School-men and Doctours of the Church and Friars were all such and as for Bishop Fisher Peter Lombard and Pope Gelasius these I may almost presume he will let pass for Papists What is then this Roman doctrin which so many Roman Doctours whereof each one had such a multitude of disciples and followers in the Catholik world do not so much as acknowledg Where shall we finde it For your Disswader names heaps of Popish Doctours that deny it and not any one that owns it nor ever so much as tells us what it is What strange kind of proceeding is this Nay in the beginning of the section he tells us that this Popery of Transubstantiation is so new that it is well enough known to have begun in the Councel of Lateran and yet in the middle of the very same section sayes expresly that the opinion was not determined in the Lateran Councel as it is now held at Rome The Popery or popish doctrin of Transubstantiation now held at Rome it is very well known to all saith he that it had its first beginning in the Lateran Councel and yet addes that the opinion was not determined in the Lateran Councel as it is now held at Rome What opinion Sir was determined in the Lateran Councel and what is that which is now held at Rome Does not your Disswader speak of the doctrin now held at Rome when beginning his section he speaks thus The doctrin of Transubstantiation is so fan from being Primitive and Apostolick that we know the very time it began to be owned publickly for an opinion and the very Councel in which it passed for a publick doctrin which Councel two or three lines afterward he sayes was the Councel of Lateran under Pope Innocent the third twelve hundred years after Christ. And against that new doctrin which began he sayes twelve hundred years after Christ and thereby convicted of novelty he writes this his whole section What means he then in the name of God but only two pages after namely p. 39. to say that the opinion was not determined in the Later an as it is now held at Rome Is that opinion now held at Rome younger or older than the Councel Lateran and when began that opinion held at Rome or was it from the beginning And against which of the opinions does he speak in this section For against both of them together he cannot The very head and principal and as it were the summe of all his discours in this section The doctrin of Transubstantiation is so far from being Primitive and Apostolick that we know the very time it began and the Councel it passed for a doctrin c. It was but a disputable question till the Councel of Lateran in the time of Pope Innocent 1200. and more after Christ c. This I say cannot agree with the doctrin now held at Rome which he sayes afterward is another thing from that which was determined in the Councel of Lateran If then this parcel of Popery which he sayes in one place is not that which was determined in the Councel of Lateran and in another place is that which
dat virtute benedictionis in illud transelement at â eorum quae apparent naturâ Lastly that I may not forget my own design which is not here to prove Catholik faith but only to take a little view of this Disswasive from it those words of S. Cyril in his Mystagogica quarta Hoc sciens pro certissimo habens panem bunc qui videtur â nobis non esse panem etiamsi gustus panem esse sentiat sed corpus Christi vinum quod à nobis conspicitur tametsi sensu gustus vinum esse videatur non tamen vinum sed sanguinem esse Christi c. I say these and such like words of ancient Christian Divines many hundreds of years before the Councel of Lateran speak as much the thing meant by Transubstantiation as any Doctour can express it now though these may know more of the word than they And indeed the definition of the Catholik Councel makes no alteration at all in the practice of Catholik faith which so considers their Lords presence in the Eucharist that it never heeds the Quomodo or concomitances the adoration love and devotion being still and ever in all things the very same If Christ our Lord should appear to two Christians now as he did once to S. Paul in a splendour of light and a voice out of that shining brightnes should issue so efficacious that they should both of them be fully perswaded in their hearts to worship him whom they beleeved both of them there present I suppose these two would equally do well and equally do the same thing although one of them should haply think ther was no other thing there but his Lord in an appearance of light and the other should not think at all of the light whether it were a substance or only an appearance of it But if a third man should deny the real presence of our Lord in that light he would for certain be of another faith So it is here Protestants who deny the real presence are of another beleef from Catholiks who acknowledg it but Catholiks who equally adore it are all of one beleef though perhaps not one of a million ever thinks of Transubstantiation O but Christ might be present in the Eucharist although Transubstantiation were not He might so and Christ likewise may be owned for God though Consubstantiation were never thought of Both there and here somthing is explicately spoken which was latitant in the former practice and beleef and he that can may understand it But the millions that never heard of it so long as they beleev and worship their Crucified Redeemer as they ought in the Eucharist are never the worse Had it not been for hereticks neither Consubstantiation nor Transubstantiation had been ever heard of and yet the practice and faith of Catholik Christians the same it is The holy Fathers which your Disswader cites against this particle of Catholik beleef som say nothing at all there concerning that thing som speak what he cites in another manner som teach quite contrary But this I intend not now to insist upon Only thus much in general and I pray you Sir mark it well Those ancient Fathers who say somtimes that the words of our Lord are to be understood spiritually not carnally and that those symbols are a figure of his body agree with all Catholiks that are now in the world no less in the meaning of those their words than others wherin they manifestly assert the real presence in this Sacrament For all Catholiks say that our Lord is not to be so understood that his holy body in the Eucharist is to be fed upon in a carnal way as though it should be divided into gobbets and so digested by the stomack into flesh and blood as other meats are but that as that holy body now glorified is becom a spiritual body as good S. Paul speaks totally spiritual and divine and not now subject to any condition or laws of material corruptible bodies here on earth so is it spiritually to be taken as the food not of a mortal body but the immortal spirit So likewise do all Catholiks acknowledg and beleev that the symbols after the powerfull blessing of Christs consecration do so becom his sacred body by conversion mutation or transelementation as the same Fathers speak that outward appearance which remains of them is not now any more a figure of bread and wine as it was before but of our Lords precious body and blood which have succeeded in their place So that those very words of the ancient Fathers wherin they say that the elements are now becom a figure of Christs body and blood do prove not only a real presence but a transelementation too or Transubstantiation which your Disswader judges to sound somwhat more For every material body I pray you Sir mark this well I say every material body here on earth as a tree a man or beast or other thing exhibits to the eye ear taste or other sences an outward species of that which it is And the substance ever goes along in nature with that appearance it exhibits unless the power of God should interpose and make it otherwise Thus when I have bread before me or milk for example that I see taken from the cow I see it and feel it and tast it to be such as it shows it self and such it is as it shows it self to be Thus it is in all nature But we are not say those good holy Fathers to think so here For though here be the colour and touch and tast of bread yet after this strange and powerful conversion made by Gods omnipotent words it is no more bread you see it is not natural bread you touch it is not material bread you tast but the blessed body of your Redeemer which is touched seen and tasted under those remaining appearances which are no more now the figure of bread which they were before but the figure of our Lords body under the species appearance or representation of bread now wonderfully concealed And thus much is manifestly and clearly exprest by all those holy Fathers Hoc sciens faith great St. Cyril of Jerusalem pro certissimo habens panem hunc qui videtur à nobis non esse panem etiamsi gustus panem esse sentiat sed est Corpus Christi vinum quod à nobis conspicitur tametsi sensu gustus vinum esse videatur non tamen vinum sed sanguinem esse Christi And this speak all holy Fathers both Greek and Latin It would be endles to bring their testimonies By these few words if Sir you have heeded them well you will presently conceiv the meaning of that speech of Tertullian in his third book against Marcion Acceptum panem distributum discipulis Corpus suum illum fecit Hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset Corpus