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  Just as there are different medicines depending on the type of disease, so there are different modi correctionum depending on the type of sin. Three types of sin (corresponding to three different correctiones): 1. Ex ignorantia: the medicine for this sin is knowledge (scientia); exemplum: Paul, who sinned because of his ignorance and was cured by Christ with the medicina scientie. 2. Ex fragilitate: the medicine for this sin is the amor dei; exemplum: Peter who denied Christ three times. 3. Ex malicia propria et iniquitate cordis: the medicine for this sin is the timor damnationis et iudicii; exemplum: Judas Iscariot.
Divisio
1) First part: concerning the “inner formation”, called by the Doctors nativitas in utero. To explain this type of nativitas, the preacher uses the example of the nucleus planted and germinated in the ground, which "iam est natus, licet extra terram nihil appareat". The thema can be interpreted on the basis of this type of nativitas: for Judas, in fact, it would have been better not to be born, since without the birth of the body there can be no infusion of the soul and, consequently, no damnation. Quaestio: is it better to be something or nothing, i.e. not to be? Compared to being with the burden of eternal damnation, it’s better not to be at all (just as it's better to own nothing than to own something that entails great economic burdens and obligations); the damned, in fact, would rather not be than continue to exist in damnation (“damati desiderant mortem et appetunt non esse, sed non possunt mori”; follows a quotation from Revelation 9, 6). In light of this, the preacher exhorts people to avert the risk of going to hell in good time and not to claim to go to heaven if they commit sin in their actions. 2) Second part: concerning the “outer production”, i.e. when the child leaves the mother's womb. The thema is also true with regard to this second type of birth, since if Judas had not been “outwardly born”, i.e. had he died in his mother's womb, he would have died with only original sin and, consequently, would have had a better condition in the afterlife in the Limbo of the Infants (where souls, although not having access to Paradise, are not afflicted by sensory pain). Ferrer then addresses the issue of original sin, which "non est peccatum factum a creatura sed receptum" and, therefore, doesn’t involve sensory punishment; the inheritance of original sin is explained through the simile of a king (God) who entrusts an impregnable castle (the Earthly Paradise) to a traitorous soldier (Adam and Eve) who surrenders the castle to the king's enemy (the Devil): the merciful king does not kill the traitorous soldier, but forbids his descendants (the mankind) to enter his court (the Paradise); only baptism allows access to Paradise again. The souls in the Limbo of the Infants on the one hand give thanks to God, for he has exempted them from the pains of Hell; on the other hand, when they see the glory of the blessed, they complain and make seven accusations: 1. Against the parents, if through their fault the children died without being baptised (reference to husbands who treat their wives badly, causing abortion); 2. Against foolish mothers who, despite knowing they are pregnant, don’t properly guard the thesaurum eis commissum; 3. Against widows, nuns, girls and wives who terminate illegitimate pregnancies; 4. Against those (medici, apothecarii) who were complicit in their deaths; 5. Against mothers who wait a long time before baptising their children and, in the meantime, smother them with their udders (here the preacher is instructed to display the modus lactandi); 6. Againts the priests and the lay people who baptise in dangerous conditions (here the preacher is instructed to display the formam baptisandi); 7. Against fathers who don’t bother to baptize children conceived with an unfaithful woman (iudea vel agarena). 3) Third part: concerning the “higher adoption”, i.e. when the creature, with baptism, acquires the “right to inherit Paradise” (ius habendi paradisum). According to Ferrer, the thema can also be interpreted in relation to this type of nativitas: bonum erat ei si non esset natus (= baptisatus) homo ille, since a baptised Christian, if condemned to damnation as ungrateful, has a greater penalty than an infidel (as proof of this, the episode of St. Macarius and the skull is reported, taken from the Vitas patrum). It’s possible to trace a concordance in a prophecy by David (cf. Psalms 54); the final section of the sermon, starting with the prophecy sentence “mecum dulces capiebas cibos” (Psalms 54, 15), deals with the sacrament of communion: it’s appropriate to receive this sacrament on Easter Day, provided it’s received in a worthy manner (in this regard, women may adorn their bodies "modeste, cogitando quoniam sicut sacerdotes ornant et preparant altaria").