MartinVT

Annotations and comments

MartinVT has posted 240 annotations/comments since 10 January 2016.

The most recent first…

Comments

Third Reading

About Friday 17 January 1661/62

MartinVT  •  Link

several walks up and down to hear news

Sam goes to Westminster often, just for this purpose, but hasn't put it this way before — walking up and down the hall is really the equivalent of our surfing the web on our phone to see what has transpired, and includes, just as we have today, the possibility of receiving fake news. As any of us might do today, he checks another source and concludes his original one was wrong. In some ways, not all that much has changed, just the means for distributing information.

About Tuesday 14 January 1661/62

MartinVT  •  Link

Berkenshaw spent time with Sam yesterday to discuss composition of music. Today's opening statement, "Mr. Berkenshaw by appointment yesterday coming to me, and begun composition of musique, and he being gone I to settle my papers and things" could be read to refer to that meeting but on closer examination, obviously he means that they set up an appointment yesterday to meet again today.

About Monday 13 January 1661/62

MartinVT  •  Link

Louise Hudson, 2015: "I wonder how that worked out exactly. Seems impossible." (367 descendants). Kind of a tangent off a tangent, but...

There are various sources on this, just Google, but one source states: "By her sixteen children she had 114 grandchildren, 228 great-grandchildren, and nine great-great-grandchildren, 367 in all. Her grandson, Dr. Michael Honywood, dean of Lincoln, was accustomed to tell of his having been present at a banquet given by her to her descendants, two hundred of whom sat down to table."

This is not nearly the record, however. The Guinness record goes to: "At the time of his death on 15 October 1992, Samuel S. Mast (USA), aged 96, of Fryburg, Pennsylvania, had 824 living descendants. The roll call comprised 11 children, 97 grandchildren, 634 great-grandchildren and 82 great-great-grandchildren." But how many ever sat down together at table?

About Saturday 11 January 1661/62

MartinVT  •  Link

Alan Bedford, 2005: "In another century and change, Ragusa will become the first country to recognize the United States of America."

Not so, according to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis… well-sourced chronological Wikipedia list of countries recognizing the United States, which lists 6 countries ahead of Ragusa.

About Saturday 4 January 1661/62

MartinVT  •  Link

the dog

To be clear, today it was already Chetwin's dog to begin with (or Chetwin was his person): Sam "walked a turn or two with Mr. Chetwin (who had a dog challenged of him by another man that said it was his". So Chetwin *had the dog* when they arrived at Westminster. The alleged dognapping took place at some previous time. The former owner challenges Chetwin about the pooch, but the pooch (at last) decides it belongs to Chetwin and follows him. No microchips. Did anyone clean up after their dog while walking "a turn or two" inside Westminster Hall?

About Tuesday 31 December 1661

MartinVT  •  Link

Not a spoiler unless you click through this link https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl… to the Pepysclopedia entry about wine — check the graph there to see how well — or not — Sam's abstention oath works out for him over time, assuming that the number of diary mentions correlates somewhat with the amount of consumption.

About Monday 30 December 1661

MartinVT  •  Link

>Australian Susan on 31 Dec 2004: "which do not much displease us"
>I took this to mean that he was displeased with them, but not very much

Agreed, it is the barest of praise, but he is interested in what Pen has to say, before he elevates his own opinion of the paintings (which might be seen as vanity). I knew a choir director whose highest and best praise for his singers during rehearsals was "not bad." In his case, it actually meant pretty darned good.

About Tuesday 17 December 1661

MartinVT  •  Link

>he finally put in a good workday, no wonder his diary entry was relatively brief!

Quite often when the entries are very brief like this, and we are in a string of such days, it's because he has skipped diary writing for a number of days and then writes a number of days all at once, sometimes mentioning that on the day he catches up. We might be losing some detail in the process, like how much drinking took place and where and with whom.

About Monday 16 December 1661

MartinVT  •  Link

I agree that boards and baulks means a combination of planks and timbers suitable for framing. Presumably resupply for ship's carpenters, or for some special project on one or more of the ships. Akin to "balk," still standard Dutch for beam.

About Friday 13 December 1661

MartinVT  •  Link

>Why would anyone disinter Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury 1504 – 1575 -- and keep his bones when there was a perfectly good place to leave them?

Apparently he was buried at Lambeth, the official London residence of the archbishops of Canterbury, upon his death in 1575. His tomb was desecrated by the Puritans in 1648 (source: http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/Bios…) Though ordained a Catholic, he had become a steadfast Anglican, holding fast against the Puritans. That source says his bones were recovered and reburied under Archbishop Sancroft, but Sancroft did not gain that office until 1678. Still, possibly Sancroft was involved in the current (1661) effort to rebury Parker's remains.

About Saturday 7 December 1661

MartinVT  •  Link

Captain Ferrers' volatility:

Besides today's incident and the one linked above on Sept. 12, 1662 (next year), let's remember also that on May 19th of this year he leapt out of Sandwich's balcony windows and injured himself quite seriously. Perhaps this is why he is now using a cane.

About Friday 6 December 1661

MartinVT  •  Link

Regarding Sam's little visit to the King's "closet" — yes, he has been in the King's company before, but no, he probably didn't have any conversation with him, then or today. And probably this was hardly a private meeting, with all kinds of courtiers and supplicants around besides the delegation Sam was with.

Still, I like how to his diary-readers he passes off this visit very matter-of-factly, as if it happens all the time, and mentions that the King makes a promise to them, as if they somehow twisted his arm. But I bet he went home and said to Liz, "guess where *I* was today!"

About Saturday 16 November 1661

MartinVT  •  Link

A nice sober Saturday for Sam, nose to the grindstone, no merriment, not a drop to drink. Hence, not much for us to comment about, alas.

About Sunday 10 November 1661

MartinVT  •  Link

Tonyel, I, for one, will not make a habit out of asking Chat GPT to expound on religious questions (or to invent diary entries for players in Sam's diary). But I thought its detailed explanation of the divergent views on grace was pretty good and worth noting in the context of today's sermon by Dr. Buck, especially since the question raised by the sermon had not really been addressed by others in the last three readings over 20 years.

Nor will I denigrate any religious statements recorded by Sam as not making sense.

About Sunday 10 November 1661

MartinVT  •  Link

Part IV:

5. Theological Determinism and God's Justice
Another approach, which is more in line with classical theological determinism, is the idea that God, as the Creator, has the right to dispense grace as He wills, and His justice is not subject to human understanding. In this view, God's justice is perfect, even if it seems unjust from a human perspective.

Why some receive grace and others don't: God’s choice to offer grace to some and not to others is not something that can be judged by human standards of fairness. This perspective emphasizes the mystery and majesty of God’s sovereignty. God’s decisions are always just because they are in line with His perfect nature, but humans are not in a position to fully understand the reasons behind His actions.

Effectiveness of grace: For those whom God chooses to offer grace to, it will always be effective. Those who do not receive grace will not do so because of any flaw in God’s character but because, in His perfect will, He has chosen not to extend grace to them.

Conclusion
In short, each theological perspective provides a different answer to the mystery of why God gives grace to some and not others. Calvinism emphasizes God’s sovereign will, Arminianism emphasizes human free will, Molinism suggests God’s middle knowledge and providence, universalism believes in the eventual salvation of all, and classical determinism affirms God’s perfect justice and sovereignty.

The mystery remains profound and largely unresolved in human terms, but these different views attempt to shed light on the issue based on their understanding of Scripture, the nature of God, and the relationship between divine sovereignty and human freedom. Ultimately, many Christians believe that the answer is beyond human understanding but trust in the goodness and justice of God, who is both merciful and righteous.

About Sunday 10 November 1661

MartinVT  •  Link

Part III

3. Molinism (Middle Knowledge)
A third way of approaching this problem is through Molinism, a view developed by the Jesuit philosopher Luis de Molina. Molinism proposes that God has middle knowledge, meaning that He knows not only what will happen but also what could happen in any given circumstance. In this view, God knows all possible choices individuals could make and, in His providence, arranges the circumstances of each person’s life so that they have the opportunity to respond to His grace, even though they have free will to choose otherwise.

Why some receive grace and others don't: According to Molinism, God, in His perfect knowledge, knows who will freely accept His grace and who will reject it. He allows individuals to have genuine freedom while ensuring that His ultimate plan for salvation will come to pass. For those who would accept grace if given the opportunity, God provides it.

Effectiveness of grace: In this view, God offers grace to all, but it’s effective only in those who are willing to respond to it. The difference between those who accept it and those who do not is a matter of free will.

4. Universalism
Some Christians embrace universalism, the belief that ultimately, all people will be saved. Universalists argue that God’s grace is so powerful and encompassing that, regardless of the choices people make in this life, God will eventually bring all people to salvation. In this view, the apparent disparity in who receives grace and who does not is seen as temporary — either in this life or after death, God will ensure everyone has the opportunity to respond to His grace and ultimately be saved.

Why some receive grace and others don't: From a universalist perspective, the "problem" is more about the timing and nature of God's grace. God may allow some people to reject grace temporarily in this life, but in the end, His love and grace will triumph, and everyone will be brought into relationship with Him.

Effectiveness of grace: Grace is always effective, but some people may resist it temporarily. Ultimately, however, God's love will win them over, and no one will be left behind.

About Sunday 10 November 1661

MartinVT  •  Link

Part II:
_______

[end of Chat's answer]
Not bad for a bot. Let's see whether Sam hears Dr. Buck answer the question he raises. Meanwhile, I asked Chat if it had any answers. Turns out Chat is quite the theologian.

ME: Thank you for this explanation. Can you provide any answers to the mystery you describe in your last paragraph?

ChatGPT: You're welcome! The mystery described in the last paragraph — why God gives grace to some and not to others, and how this can be reconciled with God’s justice and mercy — is a profound theological question that has sparked debate among Christian thinkers for centuries. There are several different theological perspectives that attempt to address this mystery, and while no one answer can fully resolve it to everyone's satisfaction, here are some of the main responses from different Christian traditions:

1. The Doctrine of Predestination (Calvinism)
In the Reformed tradition, especially in Calvinism, the question is often addressed through the doctrine of unconditional election and irresistible grace. According to this view, God has sovereignly chosen certain individuals to receive His grace and be saved (the "elect"), and others He has not chosen (the "reprobate"). This choice is not based on anything the individual has done or will do, but is simply the result of God's sovereign will.

Why God chooses some and not others: Calvinists would argue that God’s will is ultimately inscrutable. While it may seem unjust from a human perspective that some are chosen and others are not, God's decisions are always just because He is perfectly good and just. His ways are beyond human comprehension.

Effectiveness of grace: For those whom God has chosen, His grace is irresistible and will always lead to salvation. The elect will respond positively to the gospel because God's grace makes their hearts willing.

2. Free Will and Conditional Election (Arminianism)
In contrast to Calvinism, Arminianism emphasizes the importance of human free will in responding to God's grace. According to this view, God's grace is available to all people, but it is up to individuals to choose whether or not to accept it. Conditional election means that God predestines people based on His foreknowledge of who will freely choose to believe in Christ.

Why some receive grace and others don't: Arminians would argue that God offers His grace freely to everyone, but not everyone chooses to accept it. People are responsible for their response to God’s invitation. The mystery lies in the fact that while God desires all to be saved, He allows people the freedom to reject Him.

Effectiveness of grace: Grace, in this view, is not irresistibly effective. God enables people to respond positively, but He does not force anyone. Those who choose to believe will be saved, and the grace offered to them is effective in bringing about their salvation.

About Sunday 10 November 1661

MartinVT  •  Link

I don't know if Sam has been introduced to AI yet, but I thought I would pose the theological question to Chat GPT, as follows:

Can you explain this passage in the Diary of Samuel Pepys, stating the subject of a sermon: "why God should give means of grace to those people which he knew would not receive them, and deny to others which he himself confesses, if they had had them, would have received them, and they would have been effectual too".

In the blink of an eye Chat answered as follows:

Certainly! In this passage from the Diary of Samuel Pepys, the subject of the sermon being referred to deals with a theological question about God's grace, predestination, and human free will. The passage presents a dilemma about why God would grant opportunities for grace (or salvation) to some people who will not take advantage of them, while withholding those opportunities from others who, if given the chance, would have embraced them and been saved.

Here’s a breakdown of the key ideas in the passage:

God giving grace to those who won't receive it: The first part of the passage asks why God gives "means of grace" (things like the gospel, faith, or salvation) to people who, in the sermoner's view, are not going to accept or respond to it. These are individuals who will reject the grace they are offered, even though they have the opportunity.

Denying grace to those who would accept it: The second part of the passage raises the question of why God might withhold grace from others, who would have accepted it if they had been given the opportunity. These are people who, if they had been exposed to the gospel or had the chance to believe, would have responded positively and received the grace, leading to their salvation.

The effect of grace: The passage emphasizes that those who would have received grace would have found it effective, meaning that if they had had access to it, it would have brought them salvation.

Theological implications:
This question touches on some classic issues in Christian theology, especially debates about free will versus predestination, and the justice of God. Why would God choose to grant salvation to some and not to others, especially if some people are more willing to accept it than others?

This problem is often discussed in terms of God’s sovereignty (His ultimate control over who gets grace) and human responsibility (the idea that people should be free to choose or reject grace). Some theological traditions, especially Calvinism, would argue that God's choices are beyond human understanding and are part of His divine plan. Other traditions might suggest that God’s grace is universally available, and it's up to individuals to respond.

In sum, the sermon is grappling with the mystery of why God would apparently treat people differently regarding access to grace, and whether this is just, given that some people seem more predisposed to respond positively than others.

About Wednesday 6 November 1661

MartinVT  •  Link

"to drink their morning draft with me, and I did give it them in good wine, and anchovies, and pickled oysters, and took them to the Sun in Fish Street, there did give them a barrel of good ones, and a great deal of wine,"

Sam seems to repeat himself here, unless they went to two different pubs and had oysters in each one, all before a big lunch. Perhaps he got interrupted in writing this, and restarted without deleting the previous thought?