I'm helping translate some Renaissance Latin (Lawrence of Brindisi) and have come across a passage that I think I understand, but I want to double-check.
Hic autem dicitur: Caro mea uere est cibus, sanguis meus uere est potus, ita ut si clarioribus verbis exprimere mysterium hoc voluisset ad significandum se absque ulla figura, sed vere simpliciterque se locutum esse, vix scio quibus aliis uti potuisset, nec invenio in Sacris Litteris verba clariora, quibus cetera fidei et pietatis nostrae mysteria exprimantur.
It's the part in bold that's bothering me. Se is of course a reflexive pronoun, but is it correct to take se as the accusative logical subject in indirect discourse introduced by significare? I know that it's not quite right to say logical subject, because the subject of voluisset is the same as locutum esse, but the se could have an emphasizing/clarifying effect. Thus, literally, "he had wanted to express this mystery in order to signify that he—without any figure, but truly and simply—that he spoke." Or, more polished: "he had wanted to express this mystery with clearer words to signify that, without any figure, he truly and simply spoke."
Or is se somehow reflexive? I.e. "he spoke himself" or "spoke about himself"? Since this is heady religious stuff this slightly strange sense may well be possible, philosophically, but I can't quite figure out what the grammar dictates.