Introduction As poison is worse than a sword and a false friend worse than a false coin, so it was the falsity and simulation of the Pharisees who asked Jesus for a sign. This leads to two brief quaestiones: whether and how it is licit to praise other people; why the Pharisees sinned mortally by calling Jesus "master" – although he was it. The latter include a discussion on how action and intention need to be joined, since both need to follow the law of God. Division - First part Main theme is ingratitude, first presented by commenting the Gospel episode (postillatio) and then moraliter by considering the Christians who – having received more benefits than the Jews – must thank God (reference to moral teaching of Seneca and, on a spiritual level, in particular to the special gift of the eucharist). Three possible mistakes: “De huius modi beneficiis et donis acceptis: Quidam de deo non cogitant. Quidam deum de beneficiis non honorant. Quidam dei beneficia exasperant” (6V). 1.1. To forget the benefits that God gave connectes with the sensuality of the flesh (voluptas carni) – reference to Plato and the opposition between soul and body. 1.2. Ungrateful people who do not give thanks to God are like a pork, which eats acorns without looking at the tree, i.e. without raising its eyes. An exemplum from the Vitas patrum: in a vision an old monk sees part of his fellow monks eating white bread and honey, while the others eating shit (stercus). The first are those who «in timore et gratiarum actione sedent at mensam», while the other are those who «murmurant, detrahunt et male locuntur in mensa, nec gratias dicunt» (6X). 1.3. Ungrateful is also to ask continuously God for more, without realizing that in the Passion everything has already been given to us. Seneca’s exemplum (De beneficiis) of the condemnation of a soldier ungrateful with the one who saved him from shipwreck. Allegorical application to the Christians, saved from death (the shipwrek), welcomed at home (the church), nourished with the eucharist: they promise a lot and then maintain very little («multa promittimus et pauca solvimus»; 6Y [note the use of the first person plural]), so Christ – the saviour - will expose our fault in front of God the father, who will impress the marks (stigmata) of eternal damnation on them. Second part  Interpretation of the parable of the return of the unclean spirit (parable): in the allegory (allegorice), the devil has left the gentile, who welcomed Christ with faith, and now inhabits the Jews («ideo recendente dyabolo a gentilibus ad iudeos est reversus, in quibus nunc per infidelitatem et obstinationem dicitur inhabitare»; 6Z). On a moral level (moraliter), the parable concerns the recidivist who returns to sin and the danger of his/her condition, since «per talem recidivationem sit: Homo debilior ad resurgendum. Dyabolus fortior ad invadendum. Deus difficilior ad indulgendum». 2.1. By repeating a sin, a person gets less sensible to its relevance and more tied to it do to the habit. Image of the fish or bird in the net. 2.2. Moral interpretation of the parable. The devil is expelled by penance, yet it might come back – it has no power but it can knock at the door of the heart both using fantasies in the memory («movendo fantasmata malorum in memoria reservata incendendo per desiderium amoris»; 6Z) or using the seven vices (seven capital sins). A quaestio about how can be interpret the return of previous sins, if they were forgiven. Indeed, it is the new sin of ungratefulness for their forgiveness that is added to the new sins. Hence, one has to confess it without repeating the confession of all the previous sins (unclear reference: «ut dicit Lodovicus in summa sua») [note the pastoral outcome of this interpretation]. 2.3. God is less ready to forgive those who repeatedly despised his mercy. Discussion whether the repetition of a sin makes it worst, with a detailed reference to the position of Bonaventure, who depicted four stages of sin: interior consent; action; habit; final absence of repentance. The last stage is final and cannot be forgiven, while the other three are connected with the three episodes of resurrections in the Gospel, which symbolically happen in three different places: at home, on the door of the city, in the tomb. Third part Jesus praises the grace given to those who perform good deeds. Explanation of the scene of the Gospel, when the Virgin Mary and the relatives of Jesus call him outside. It was an insidious request, since he would abandon his pastoral engagement showing human feelings. On a moral level, it teaches that one must choose by considering the utility and dignity of things, and this is true also at a spiritual level. «Ideo quilibet debet ea [spiritualia] preeligere et preponere et hoc quo ad tria, scilicet: Temporis prioritatem. Intentionis principalitatem. Ordinis dignitatem» (7E).  3.1. One must choose virtue while s/he is young, without waiting the old age – simile  of the wax, flexible only when is hot. And exemplum of the miller who had a donkey, which he did not force when it was young, and that later on refused to work and kicked the miller, killing him. The donkey symbolizes the body: if it is not dominated when one is young, it would condemn him/her to the eternal death. 3.2. Centrality of the intention - and quaestio on how to interpret the command: «Omnia in gloriam dei facite» (1 Corinthians 10 ). The solution seems to be not that each act needs to be directly connected to the glory of God, but that it becomes an habit, as the direct exhortation sates: «Ad hoc enim debemus tendere et hoc desiderare, quod ad talem statum perveniamus quod omnes actiones nostras et affectiones principlai intentione ad deum referamus» (6I). 3.3. The necessity to put spiritual before worldly things is exemplified by saint Luis of Toulouse, quoting John XXII’s the bull of canonization («unde in bulla eius translatione scribit Iohnnis Papa XXII: Ludovicus ut sol refulgens in virtute ...»; 6K).

Introduction Three quaestiones: Why it is more meritorious (merit) to love the enemies and how should be done (references to Peter Lombard and Thomas Aquinas). How one can do it (reference to Augustine). In which way one has to forgive the insults, namely by giving up on rancour and its signs, yet asking for the restitution of goods and reputation.  - Division [Note references to previous days] - First part Foundation of all is mutual love (caritas). “Debemos ergo nos invicem amare” in three ways:   Debitum persolvendum Eternum premium conseguendum Damnationis periculum evadendum 1.1. Forgive all debts, as requested in the Pater noster and quoting the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matthew 18:23-35). 1.2. Love is laborious but it yields an exrtraordinary eternal reward: “est grande labor in hoc seculo, sed grande premium in futuro”. The example is saint Stephen [2T]. 1.3. Hatred is deathly dangerous, it must be avoided, since it is like an mortal wound hidden in the mind and darkening the soul: “qui enim odit habet in mente letale vulnus et gerit in corde tenebris peccatorum” [2V].  -- Second part  Actions are good or bad depending on intention, this idea is applied to fasting, prayer and almsgiving. This applies even to the crucifixion of Christ: it is undoubtedly a good work, since from it salvation derives, yet the Jews (indicated as perpetrators) did not receive any reward, since they did it out of envy [2X]. “Deus enim cor interrogat et non manum” – interior intention is crucial. Superius elevata intentionis rectitudine Interius coaptata incorruptionis pulcritudine Inferius subiugata ex donationis celsitudine 2.1. Intention orients the actions to their final goal, which is God. Image of the crossbower who has to close one eye and open the other, which means: close the eye to the worldly seductions and keep the other fixed on Christ [2Z]. 2.2. One needs first of all to purify the heart to avoid to maculate the good works. It is useless to worry to be sparkling clean outside (graphic description) while neglecting the purity of the heart. Reference to the hypocrites as whitewashed tombs (Matthew 23:27). Discussion on hypocrisy, simulated sanctity and desire to be noted (it can be only vanity or a lesser sin, yet can be also a mortal sin) [3B.] 2.3. one needs humility, do not inflate. One must think that all goods derive from grace (“ex gratia dei”) and consider to be a sinner. Even the saints still (rightly) considered themselves as sinners: example told by Bonaventure about the reaction of saint Francis when a friar told him that saw in a dream the celestial throne prepared for him [3D]. -  Third part  The way one performs almsgiving also matters. This is discussed on the basis of the biblical sentence: “Ante mortem benefac amico tuo et exporrigens da pauperi secundum vires tuas” (Sir 14.13) – which becomes a sort of thema of this section. Conferentis celeritas Accipientis propinquitas Pacientis necessitas 3.1. Give alms quickly, willingly, without delay – since death is always close and one cannot delegate the relatives. An hermit had a vision: two tables, one full of food, the other empty, the latter symbolizes the good works delegated to others. Several quotations from the moral works of Seneca. Usual reference to the canon law on jesters (histriones) and prostitutes [3G] 3.2. When the need is similar, one first must help relatives and friends and then strangers. Issue: shall one make distinction between who has to receive alms? Discussion on the proverb: “Sudet elemosina in manu tua donec invenies iustum cui des” [3H], which dates to Augustine and Gregory the Great (not mentioned), and ultimately to the Didaché. First, alms must be given to preacher and prelate. Second, give without any distinction to those who need food. Next, if the need is similar, start from the neighbours. 3.3. Priority is to give to the poor that suffer the most. The sermon ends by commenting the epistle of the day: Frange esurienti panem tuum... (Isaiah 58:7), with a quite direct to treat the poor with respect: “induc in domo tuam, non in stabulum porcorum in locum despectum” [3I].  -

Introduction Peter received this name after his confession of faith in Christ, which made him the foundation of the Church. The Church will not be wrong on faith and moral teaching necessary for salvation, yet it can be wrong on other things: "In aliis autem non pertinentibus ad fidem et falli et errare potet" (f. k4v). Three types of ecclesia: 1) the ecclesia malignantium (Psalm 1); 2) the militant Church, i.e. catholic, "non sicut latibula hereticorum"; 3) the triumphant Church. The sermon will deal with the second one. Division - First part The unity of the Church is proved in five ways: auctoritates; rationes; similitudines; revelationes; confutationes. The main emphasis is on the key concept that there is no salvation outside the Church (extra ecclesia nulla salus). Talking of the rationes, to explain the principle of non-contradiction, the sermon compares the different positions among religions (Jews and Islam - or rather: mahumetici and saracini), which cannot be both true. Only one is the true faith. And it points out that it is normal to persecute the religious dissent more than normal crime: “immo plus persequitur dissentientes quam fures et latrones” (f. k5v). As main simile, the sermon refers to the mystical body, with references to key passages of the apostle Paul. Interesting annotation on the fact that the body of the Church is in three places (world, purgatory, heaven), connecting them with the division of the host in three parts during the mass: the part put in the chalice symbolizes the soul already inebriated in heaven: “Sic christi corpus seu ecclesia est in triplici loco, scilicet in hoc mundo, in purgaotrio, et in celo. Ad quod significandum sacerdos in missa dividit corpus chirsti in tres partes. Per illam enim quam mittit in calice significat eos qui sunt in celo inebriati ab ubertate domus dei” (f. k5v). As revelation, the sermon briefly refers to an episode of the legend of saint Cecilia. - Key subsection With a new subdivision, the confutationes form the real body of the sermon, occupying half of the text. The confutation of mistakes is evidently crucial for this preacher. “Nam contra unitatem ecclesie sancte tres errores insurgunt: primus error est naturalium philosoforum; secundus est superborum et malorum christianorum; tertius est fere omnium paganorum” (f. k6r) Particularly developed is the confutation of the position of natural philosophers on the divine mercy that would save people in any religion/confession: “probare contendunt quod deus omnes homines ex sua bonitate salvat existentes in diversis ritibus et sectis”. The rebuttal insists on the necessary balance in God between mercy and justice. The third mistake contrasted is that not only of pagans but also of the most simple Christians, who are puzzled by the fact that God would save only those in one faith and condemn all the other nations: “Tertius error contra contra ecclesie sacre unitatem fere omnium paganorum et etiam simplicium christianorum dicitur error admirationis dicentium: ‘O quammirum esset si deus solummodo sub una fide existentes salvaret alias omnes nationes dannaret’” (f. k7r). The reply is based on the Gospel passages on the few who are saved (“multi sunt vocati, puaci vero electi”; Matthew 22:14) and the narrow and difficult road to the eternal life (Matthew 7:14) and that the people outside the Church have no excuses and one will get according to his/her merit. The final observation that half of the world is occupied by infidels introduces a long digression on the other half, occupied by ten groups (nationes) of Christians, yet only nominally: “Nam fere media hominum pars est infidelis. Sub nomine autem christiani quasi alia media pars est qua dividitur in decem nationes, scilicet Latinos, Grecos, Indios, Iacobitas, Nestorianos, Maronitas, Armenos, Georgianos, Surianos, Mozarabes” (f. k7rv). It follows a sort of geopolitics of faith, with a brief description of each groups, noting some characteristics of them – and generally condemning the non-Latin Christians all as heretics. Saying, for instance, that the Greeks are only nominally Christians, now under the political control of Turks - list of their three key theological errors: procession of the Holy Spirit; refuse of church of Rome as chief; purgatory. The Indians are those most numerous, and somehow favourably described (mentioning the practice of carrying two crosses in front of them when they go into battle). About the Jacobites, it is mentioned their practice of the circumcision and the impression of the sign of the cross on their front and body (“qui circunciduntur et baptizantur, cum ferro ignito caracterem crucis imprimunt in fronte et aliis partibus corporis ut in pectore vel brachiis"). After mentioning the Maronites (who are placed in Libya) and the Armenians (on the latter, notations on the singing of liturgy in their own language and , about the Georgians it is said that they are a strong people, in which also women are fighters (“et eorum femine utuntur armis sicut viri” – reference to Amazons?). The Syrians have the same positions of the Greeks against Latins. On the Mozarabs interesting notations on their liturgy: “Decima natio Mozarabes dicuntur quia modos christianorum de Arabia tenentur in multis et utuntur lingua latina in officiis divinis et obediunt ecclesie Rhomane, sed in multis discrepant, quia habent horas valde prolixas et faciunt tot horas divini officii quot sunt hore naturales diei cum hymnis et psalmis; et [est?] natio valde devota: in matrimonio non coniungunt nisi nationi sue gentis, inter quos femina amisso marito primo nunquam coniungit alteri” (f. k7v). While the description of the different nations of Christians reveals different degrees of sympathy, the final evaluation is extremely harsh: “Et isti omnes similiter cum infidelibus damnantur”. Taking the cue from the description of the different type of Christians, the sermon introduces a digression on their presence at the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, where – a part the Observant Franciscans who have the proper custodia of the Sepulchre – there are eight type of heretics in a sort of Babylon of languages (“sunt octo diversa genera hereticorum diversas linguas habentium adeo quod nullus intelligit alium”). The section ends with a sorrowful address to the Church: “O igitur sancta ecclesia unica sponsa Christi! O Sancti Spiritus congregatio gratiosa/ [...] O quam multi sunt in te solo nomine et extra te ipsa re [...] Ergo hi ibunt in infernum, ubi nullus ordo est sed sempiternus horror inhabitat ubi cruciabuntur in secula seculorum” (f. k8r). - Second part The power of the Church (potestas) is connected with the image of the keys, which rapidly becomes a discourse on the potestas ordinis of the priesthood, since priests have the following powers: to forgive sin; to change the pains (from those of purgatory to satisfaction); to consecrate the Eucharist; excommunication; holy orders; indulgence (this only the pope) – which however require to be ready to receive it. This section ends again with an address to the Church and a treat agains sinners: “O potestas ecclesie spiritualis quam magna es...” (f. k8r)