Introduction Just as with his death Christ wanted to give life to humanity dead due to sin, so with his temptations he wanted to give consolation to human beings who fall into temptation. Christ wanted to be tempted for three reasons (cf. Main division, 3; the following Latin quotations appear to be taken almost verbatim from Jacobus de Voragine, Quadragesimale, sermo 9 [cf. General Notes]): 1. Ut nostras tentationes vinceret; 2. Ut diabolo qui esset filiu Dei occultaret; 3. Ut temptatis facilius condescendere patteret.
The devil suspected that Jesus was the son of God for a number of reasons (reference to John Chrysostom), but to be sure, he wanted to test him with three temptations, the same temptations with which he tempted and defeated Adam: 1. Gluttony: Jesus overcomes temptation by answering the devil that non in solo pane vivit homo, sed in omni verbo quod procedit de ore Dei (quote from Matthew 4,4), because the human being is not only body (composed of four elements [reference to Aristotle]), but also soul. 2. Pride: Jesus overcomes temptation by answering the devil “Non temptabis Dominum Deum tuum sicut scriptum est, sed illi soli servies” (quote from Deutteronomy 6, 16 and Matthew 4, 7). 3. Greed: Jesus overcomes temptation by answering the devil “Vanne Satanaxo (cioè a l’inferno). El gli è scritto: adorarai el tuo Segnior Dio et servirai a lui solo” (quote from Matthew 4, 10).
Divisio (see above) 1) First part: Inferte omnem decimationem in horreum meum, ut sit cibus in domo mea, et probate me si non aperuero vobis cataractas celi (Malachi 3, 10): from this quotation it is deduced that tempting God is not a sin, since God doesn’t command anything that is a sin; however, we also read in the Scripture Non temptabis Dominum Deum tuum (cf. supra). How can this doubt be resolved? Firstly, it must be clarified what “to tempt” means: “to tempt” means “to test”, "put to the test", and this can be done with words or deeds; thus, God can be tested with words (exemplum: Jesus tested by the Pharisees [Matthew 22, 15-22]) or with deeds (exemplum: not caring when ill and relying solely on God; Caracciolo calls this attitude “madness”, because «God created everything in an orderly manner» and, therefore, also created doctors and medicines so that we can use them when necessary). In conclusion, since all temptations arise from ignorance, tempting God out of mere curiosity is a mortal sin as it denotes a lack of faith. 2) Second part: the “latrìa” is an exclusive «worship of God as the supreme and perfect being, the beginning, cause and end of all things in heaven and on earth, whom the human being must obey as the creature obeys the creator, the servant obeys the lord, the child obeys the good father» (reference to Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae III). Four reasons why only one God should be worshipped: 1. “Dignity”: the higher the rank of someone, the greater the honour and reverence they deserve [follows a direct instruction to the preacher to «discuss the temporal ranks of kings, emperors and dukes, and the spiritual ranks of bishops, cardinals, pope, etc.»]; 2. “Generosity”: every good is given by God (Omne datum optimum, et omne donum perfectum desursum est, descendens a Patre luminum [quote from James 1, 17]); 3. “Fidelity”: after baptism, the Christian promises faith, obedience and respect to Jesus Christ; therefore, just as - according to the Old Testament - those who were unfaithful in marriage deserve stoning, so those who are unfaithful to God deserve Hell; 4. “Abundance”: the reward for faithful Christians (i.e. eternal life in Paradise) is the most abundant of those promised by the various religions. [3) Third part: the third part has already been developed in the Introduction, cf. supra]

Introduction  The introduction sets up the tone of the sermon by linking Muhammad with the Apocalyptic beasts on the basis of Nicholas of Lyra’s exegesis, while on the same time starting to develop the semantic field of the bestiality as connected with immoral, carnal, worldly behaviours. Interesting also the transition from the Greeks to Muslims, and the mention of Turks (i.e. the actual historical adversary). «Charissimi audivimus rebellionem grecorum contra fidem rectam Rhomane ecclesie et illius lachrymosam ruinam propter ipsius superbiam. Nunc restat declarandum non minus lugubrem turcorum exaltatam perfidiam, de qua ad litteram secundum Nicolaum de Lyra intelligitur illud thema: Vidi aliam bestiam, scilicet Mahumetum vitam voluptuosam et bestialem ducentem, nam fuit luxuriosus super omnes hiomines orientales, ascendentem de terra, quia per mercantias et rapinas de paupertate ascendit ad divitias, et habebat coruna duo similia agni, id est Christi. Hec cornua sunt prophetia et legis nove latio; finxit enim Mahumetus maledictus se esse prophetam et legis divine latorem [...] et loquebatur sicut draco, scilicet astute, mendacite et dolose. Nihilominus tamen omnipotens deus tanta mala fieri permittit ad utilitatem electorum suorum...» (f. q4r). First part After a short section on bestiality according to scriptura and ratio, the main part is the attack against Muhammad on the basis of history  (resgesta). Laskai outlines his sources at the beginning: Speculum historiale by Vincent of Beauvais, Jacobus de Voragine, Antoninus' Chronicon (f. q4v). It follows a detailed and tendentious presentation of the life of Muhammad, which hands with the accusation that he and his followers joined any kind of lust «hominibus libidinis et voluptatis frema omnia relaxavit [...] O brutalis vita [...] Cur o Mahumet te et tecum tot homines damnasti? [...] Cur istam vitam contra naturam non spernitis? Ideo quippe quia delectatione carnis excecati estis» (f. q5v). Second part The basis of any Muslim mistake is that they do not recognize the divinity of Christ but consider him only as a prophet. It follows a detailed rebuttal of this position demonstration also contrasting the miracles that Christ continues to perform in contrast with Muhammad (again, several references to Vincent of Beauvais. The sermon ends with a final emphatic address: «O igitur vos saraceni turpiter decepti. O turci dannabiliter erroribus involuti [...] Considerate...» (f. q7v).