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 Ferrer builds a link with the topics of the previous Sunday: that on fasting, on prayer: “intentio est universalis ecclesie fideles homines ad orationem provocare”. Since each person lives a perennial conflict between flesh and spirit, the Church knows about this controversy and that the soul is right, so it first aims to restrain flesh with fasting and then to exalt the soul with prayer. While in the first Sunday the example of Jesus provoked to fasting, that of the woman of Canaan provokes now to prayer. Division The three key point are linked with the thema yet Ferrer immediately overturn that option (as if it were too intellectual...) and just follow the narrative of the pericope: “Sed de his intricationibus non curo! Sed ego volo ista tria trahere ex evangelio et non ex themate” (f. s1r). First part The sermon expands on the biblical narrative, with interesting development of the woman’s invocation (almost a model of prayer). Two analytical points (one theoretical, the other moral) 1) Why Jesus was called son of David? David expelled the devils from Saul by playing the chitara, not for the power of music but since it was figura of the cross of Christ, made with dried wood (reference to previous sermon 3/6/16: “ut pridie dixi in primo sermone cuius thema: Ecce sanus factus etc’) – symbolism developed: “Et ista cithara significant crucem et funicular significant membra Christi que fuerunt attracta in cruce et nervi cum clavis. Et clavelle ille significant clavos…” (f. s1r). The cithara produce high notes, so Christ on the cross did – reference to Jesus’ seven last words and their meaning.  2) A moral teaching: the woman’s daughter was tormented in several ways by demons, who are connected with the seven capital sins [once again]. Detailed exhortation not to recur to divination (sortilegos), with specific references to those who had lost something and to women who want to have kids. Second part   Jesus refused three times, yet the woman insisted. Also this time, the sermon details two points, one theoretical and the other moral. 1) Christ redeemed everybody with his Passion, yet not each one is saved since s/he did not want to do fasting: “quia nolunt ieiunare” [note the insistence on it, and also the exaggeration]. This is explained with a detailed simile of a rich man who went to among Saracens to redeem Christians slaves (“redimendum christianos captivos omnes qui essent penes sarracenorum in Barbaria cum magnis pencuniis”); if some of them did not want to leave after being set free, it is not his fault. In the same way the Passion “solvendo in ara crucis” frees everybody and invites all to embark on the ship that symbolize the Church (“nunciatur dicendo: ponatis vos in navigio ecclesie”). Yet, on this salvific ship the Jews did not want to embark as well as Tartars and Saracens who believe in the heaven promised by Muhammad: “Nam venerunt nuncii domini et dixerunt iudeis: venite ad navem domini. Qui dixerunt: nolumus. Similiter dicatur de tartaris et saracenis, qui dicunt quod noster propheta promittit nobis in alio mundo rivum melis et lactis” (f. s2r). 2) The moral teaching concerns learning to pray in the morning and in the evening. This is presented by means of an exemplum of a Lombard man (“Quidam lombardus...”) who decided to go to Jerusalem: during the pilgrimage, he prays everyday to ask that his journey goes well; yet, once he is almost back home, he forgets to pray and his house burn down with his wife and son inside it. Third part Why did Jesus make the woman wait and did not listen to her immediately? Two points: 1) Waiting makes the woman grow and elevate so that she obtains more at the end, so the behavior of Jesus was ruled by love. Explained with the exemplum (labeled as parable) of a soldier (miles) who asks his king for an apple: the king gives him first a castle, then a horse, then a robe, and only at the end an apple... 2) This was done to give an example of humility for us