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 The sermon opens by presenting the duty that parents have towards their children and exposing the cases in which a father can legitimately disinherit his son. The detailed list of seven cases is a vademecum on matters of inheritance (e.g. filial violence against his father, sexual intercourse with his mother or his father’s concubine, attempts to prevent the father from making a testament; do not care to set his father free from prison) serves to point out that the initial request of the prodigal son was legitimate. The sermon next presents three quaestiones that revolve around the restoration of the sinner after penance, with specific attention to the issue «whether the deeds that were alive through charity and mortified by sin will live again through penance» («Queritur tercio an opera per caritatem viva et mortificata ex peccato per penitentiam reviviscant»; 16R), underlining also the positive effects of the good works that one does in the condition of mortal sin. Drawing on Bonaventure, the sermon insists on the importance that one – even in mortal sin – should not desist from doing good because God will find the right way to remunerate him/her with his grace. Main division (see above) First part Far from God, the human being cannot have rest (reference to the Confessiones of Augustine: «my heart is restless until it would come to you, God» (Inquietum est cor meum donec veniat ad te; 16V). Hence, the sinner must return to the house of the Father (God), i.e. the church, where he will find also his mother, i.e. the Virgin Mary: “Through penitence, the sinner must return to the house of God the Father, which is the holy Church, where he will be safe from all his enemies. There he will find a graceful father and a mother, who is the glorious and clement Virgin May, because she welcomes those who seek refuge in the womb of her mercy, she protects them from all enemies, and she nourishes them with the milk of grace” («Debet ergo peccator redire ad domum dei patris, scilicet sanctam ecclesiam, in qua securatur ab omnibus adversariis, et hoc per penitentiam, et inveniet patrem graciosum, matrem scilicet virginem gloriosam clementem, que refugientes ad gremium sue misericordie suscipit et ab hostibus defendit et lacte gracie nutrit»; 16X). It follows a long digression on the Virgin who, as a mother, fosters the return of the sinners (the texts build upon several quotations of Anselm and Bernard of Clairvaux). Second part The fruitful return of the penitent to the state of grace («fructuosa reversio penitentisa ad statum gracie»; 17B). Sinners are invited to identify with the prodigal son: «the sinner is far away and separated from God and, in the same way of this prodigus, he must come to himself and think of his actual extreme misery and the great mercy of God the Father; he must lament and not rest until he will come to the father of mercy, God of full consolation» («Moraliter peccator, longe a deo divisus et separatus, debet instar huius prodigi per conversionem in se reverti, pensare propriam miseriam et inopiam et dei patris maximam pietatem, dolere et non quiescere donec ad eum veniat, qui est pater misericordiam et deus totius consolationis»). This exhortation to imitate the prodigal son is reiterated, in a process that involves heart, mouth and action («Ad hunc patrem pium et benignum debet peccator ad instar filii prodigi: in corde recurrere ad eius benignitatem; in ore proponere propriam iniquitatem; in opere intendere satisfactionis humilitatem»; 17C). This threefold division is connected with the three parts of penitence: contrition, confession, and satisfaction. The first point puts on the forefront not the memory of the sins but of the benefits received from God. This positive memory of God’s mercy is the starting point for the conversion, yet, mercy cannot be separated from justice. The listeners have to recall that God will punish those who do not convert from their sin, even though this goes against his merciful nature (17D). Dealing with confession, the sermon provides the listeners with a formulary to start an oral confession. Next, it considers the relationship between contrition and confession. Why is outward confession necessary? Is «contrition and confession of the heart» not sufficient? Per se, the contrition joined with the intention to confess and provide satisfaction as soon as possible already purifies the sinner. Later on, if he/she does not confess and satisfy, the previous sin cannot return. However, in that event he/she commits a new mortal sin by breaking the Church commandments (17E). Yet, if through contrition God already cancels the sin, what effect has confession? The sermon states that – since each sin is «against both God and the Church» – there is an ecclesiastical/social dimension of sin that, consequently, needs an ecclesiastical reconciliation «through confession, imposed satisfaction and the priest’s absolution» (Dum enim peccator peccat mortaliter, peccat contra deum et ecclesiam. […] peccat contra ecclesiam quam contemnit et scandalisat, et ligatur altero vinculo, quod solum per confessionem et satisfactionem iniunctam et absolucionem presbiteri ydonei relaxatus»; 17.F). Moreover, aural confession is necessary to tackle the problem of rightly establishing the measure of satisfaction: to solve it, God appointed the priest as arbiter and gave him the power to evaluate and impose penances (potentia arbitrandi et taxandi). Third part The final part deals with the amorosa receptio patris. It opens with a complex exemplum taken from the Gesta Romanorum (the story of the son of Alexander the Great, who revolted against his father – a story whose moral interpretation was already based on the parable of the prodigal son). The reaction of the father of the parable points out that God goes to the penitent rapidly (velociter), embraces him sweetly (dulciter), and dresses him nobly (nobiliter). Here, the sermon discusses prevenient grace and its accord with the human responsibility in the process of conversion. Grace is compared with the sun that shines but illuminates only those who open the doors, or with the indulgence that the pope offers to everybody but that are acquired only by those who go to Rome (17N). In the text, remains some tension between the free gift of God and human initiative, whose importance is clearly outlined by emphasising the importance of the first step taken by the prodigal son: «The father would not have come to the prodigal son along the way, if the son had not said before: I will rise and go to the father» («Non enim pater prodigo venisset obviam penitenti, si non prius dixisset: Surgam et ibo ad patrem»; 17N). Still, the sermon clarifies that it is not the penitent’s action that provokes and obtains grace, which remains a gift that is given «after this disposition but not because of this disposition» («post quam [contritionem] non propter quam deus vult dare gratiam»; 17N). Next, it turns to the spiritual theme of the love relationship between God and the soul [spiritual marriage]. The kissing of the father is connected with the kisses mentioned in the Song of Songs and opens the way for a first person discourse of the beloved soul: «The embrace and the kisses are signs of peace and love. […] The soul, bride of Christ, habitually longs for this greatly blessed and mostly beloved kiss; she longs with great desire and frequent sighs and repeats with the Song of Songs: Let him kiss me with kisses of his mouth (1,1), so that she could rejoice and be delighted. As if the soul would say: ‘My mostly beloved groom Jesus, for whose love I am languishing, might give me those grace and mercy that I am longing for with the whole depths of my heart, and might comfort me with the sweetness of his piety and of his divine benediction, so that I could return to life’» («Nam amplexus and oscula sunt signa pacis et amoris. […] Isto osculo superbenedicto et amantissimo magno desiderio et frequenti suspirio anima sponsa Christi appetere solet, et ut iocundetur et letetur dicere illud Cantico 1: Osculetur me osculo oris sui, quasi dicat: ‘Amantissimus sponsus meus Iesus, in cuius amore langueo, immittat mihi gratiam et misercordiam quam totis visceribus cordis desidero et confortet me dulcedine sue pietatis et divine benedictionis et reviviscam’»; 17O).  Playing on the contrast between the two brothers within the parable, the sermon then introduces a final question: whether God loves more the sinner who does penitence than the righteous person who has always been so («queritur an deus plus diligit peccatorem penitentem quam iustum semper benefacientem»; 17R). The discriminating factor is the fervour, so a penitent can surpass a righteous person (examples are Mary Magdalene and Paul). The elder brother of the parable symbolises those who are righteous but tepid (cf. Revelation 3,15). Still, this is not the rule. The sentence of the Gospel that «there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need of repentance» (Luke 15,7) applies only to few special cases, while the supreme joy of heaven is indeed reserved for those who did not need to convert, first of all the Virgin Mary and John the Baptist.