THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BY THE GRACE OF GOD, FREE AND INDEPENDENT, TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, OR MAY CONCERN, SEND GREETING :

KNOW YE, That the annexed is a true copy of the will of THOMAS PAINE, deceased, as recorded in the office of the surrogate, in and for the city and county of New York. In testimony whereof, we have caused the seal of office of our said surrogate to be hereunto affixed. Witness, Silvanus Miller, Esq., surrogate of said county, at the city of New York, the twelfth day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and nine, and of our independence the thirty-fourth.

SILVANUS MILLER.

THE WILL

The last Will and Testament of me, the subscriber, Thomas Paine, reposing confidence in my Creator, God, and in no other being, for I know of no other, nor believe in any other. I, Thomas Paine, of the State of New York, author of the work entitled “Common Sense,” written in Philadelphia, in 1775, and published in that city the beginning of January, 1776, which awaked America to a declaration of independence on the fourth of July following, which was as fast as the work could spread through such an extensive country; author also of the several numbers of the “American Crisis,” thirteen in all; published occasionally during the progress of the Revolutionary War-the last is on the peace; author also of “Rights of Man,” parts the first and second, written and published in London, in 1791 and 1792; author also of a work on religion, “Age of Reason,” parts the first and second-N. B. I have a third part by me in manuscript, and an answer to the Bishop of Llandaff; author also of a work, lately published, entitled “Examination of the Passages in the New Testament, Quoted from the Old, and called Prophecies concerning Jesus Christ, and showing there are no Prophecies of any such Person”; author also of several other works not here enumerated, “Dissertations on First Principles of Government-Decline and Fall of the English System of Finance-Agrarian Justice, etc., etc., make this my last will and testament, that is to say:

I give and bequeath to my executors hereinafter appointed, Walter Morton and Thomas Addis Emmet, thirty shares I hold in the New York Phoenix Insurance Company, which cost me fourteen hundred and seventy dollars, they are worth now upwards of fifteen hundred dollars, and all my movable effects, and also the money that may be in my trunk or elsewhere at the time of my decease, paying thereout the expenses of my funeral, IN TRUST as to the said shares, movables, and money, for Margaret Brazier Bonneville, wife of Nicholas Bonneville, of Paris, for her own sole and separate use, and at her own disposal, notwithstanding her coverture.

As to my farm in New Rochelle, I give, devise, and bequeath the same to my said executors, Walter Morton and Thomas Addis Emmet, and to the survivor of them, his heirs and assigns forever, IN TRUST nevertheless, to sell and dispose of the north side thereof, now in the occupation of Andrew A. Dean, beginning at the west end of the orchard, arid running in a line with the land sold to Coles, to the end of the farm, and to apply the money arising from such sale as hereinafter directed.

I give to my friends Walter Morton, of the New York Phoenix Insurance Company, and Thomas Addis Emmet, counselor at law, late of Ireland, two hundred dollars each, and one hundred dollars to Mrs. Palmer, widow of Elihu Palmer, late of New York, to be paid out of the money arising from said sale; and I give the remainder of the money arising from that sale, one-half thereof to Clio Rickman, of High or Upper Mary-le-Bone Street, London, and the other half to Nicholas Bonneville, of Paris, husband of Margaret B. Bonneville, aforesaid: and as to the South part of the said farm, containing upwards of one hundred acres, in trust to rent out the same, or otherwise put it to profit, as shall be found most advisable, and to pay the rents and profits thereof to the said Margaret B. Bonneville, in trust for her children, Benjamin Bonneville, and Thomas Bonneville, their education and maintenance, until they come to the age of twenty-one years, in order that she may bring them well up, give them good and useful learning, and instruct them in their duty to God, and the practise of morality; the rent of the land, or the interest of the money for which it may be sold, as hereinafter mentioned, to be employed in their education.

And after the youngest of the said children shall have arrived at the age of twenty-one years, in further trust to convey the same to the said children, share and share alike, in fee simple. But if it shall be thought advisable by my executors and executrix, or the survivors of them, at any time before the youngest of the said children shall come of age, to sell and dispose of the said south side of the said farm, in that case I hereby authorize and empower my said executors to sell and dispose of the same, and I direct that the money arising from such sale be put into stock, either in the United States Bank stock, or New York Phoenix Insurance Company stock, the interest or dividends thereof to be applied as is already directed for the education and maintenance of the said children, and the principal to be transferred to the said children, or the survivor of them, on his or their coming of age.

I know not if the Society of people called Quakers, admit a person to be buried in their burying ground, who does not belong to their Society, but if they do, or will admit me, I would prefer being buried there; my father belonged to that profession, and I was partly brought up in it. But if it is not consistent with their rules to do this, I desire to be buried on my own farm at New Rochelle.

The place where I am to be buried, to be a square of twelve feet, to be enclosed with rows of trees, and a stone or post and rail fence, with a headstone with my name and age engraved upon it, author of “Common Sense.” I nominate, constitute, and appoint Walter Morton, of the New York Phoenix Insurance Company, and Thomas Addis Emmet, counselor at law, late of Ireland, and Margaret B. Bonneville, executors and executrix to this my last will and testament, requesting the said Walter Morton and Thomas Addis Emmet, that they will give what assistance they conveniently can to Mrs. Bonneville, and see that the children be well brought up. Thus placing confidence in their friendship, I herewith take my final leave of them and of the world.

I have lived an honest and useful life to mankind; my time has been spent in doing good, and I die in perfect composure and resignation to the will of my Creator, God. Dated the eighteenth day of January, in the year one thousand eight hundred and nine; and I have also signed my name to the other sheet of this will, in testimony of its being a part thereof.

THOMAS PAINE.

Signed, sealed, published, and declared by the testator, in our presence, who, at his request, and in the presence of each other, have set our names as witnesses thereto, the words “published and declared” first interlined.

W M . KEESE, JAMES ANGEVINE, CORNELIUS RYDER.

REMARKS ON ROMANS, IX, 18-21

Addressed to the Ministers of the Calvinistic Church

Philip Foner’s introduction:

These are generally believed to be the last words written by Paine before his death, June 8, 1809. They were published in the form of an article in 1820 in London by Mary Ann Carlile, wife of the English publisher, Richard Carlile. Carlile himself had been fined £1,500 and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment in 1819 for publishing Paine’s writings. Mrs. Carlile was fined £500 and imprisoned for two years for the same offense. However, public opinion was so aroused by these outrageous violations of freedom of thought and of the press, that Mrs. Carlile’s petition to the House of Commons gained nationwide support.

---

PAUL, in speaking of God, says, “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth. Thou wilt say, why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will? Nay, but who art thou, O man, that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, Why hast Thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor?”

I shall leave it to Calvinists and Universalists to wrangle about these expressions, and to oppose or corroborate them by other passages from other books of the Old or New Testament. I shall go to the root at once, and say, that the whole passage is presumption and nonsense.

Presumption, because it pretends to know the private mind of God: and nonsense, because the cases it states as parallel cases have no parallel in them, and are opposite cases.

The first expression says, “Therefore hath He (God) mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth.” As this is ascribing to the attribute of God’s power at the expense of the attribute of His justice, I, as a believer in the justice of God, disbelieve the assertion of Paul. The Predestinarians, of which the loquacious Paul was one, appear to acknowledge but one attribute in God, that of power, which may not improperly be called the physical attribute. The Deists, in addition to this, believe in His moral attributes, those of justice and goodness.

In the next verses, Paul gets himself into what in vulgar life is called a hobble, and he tries to get out of it by nonsense and sophistry; for having committed himself by saying that “God hath mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth,” he felt the difficulty he was in, and the objections that would be made, which he anticipates by saying, “Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth He (God) yet find fault? for who hath resisted His will? Nay, but, O man, who art thou, that repliest against God!”

This is neither answering the question, nor explaining the case. It is downright quibbling and shuffling off the question, and the proper retort upon him would have been, “Nay, but who art thou, presumptuous Paul, that puttest thyself in God’s place?”

Paul, however, goes on and says, “Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus?” Yes, if the thing felt itself hurt, and could speak, it would say it. But as pots and pans have not the faculty of speech, the supposition of such things speaking is putting nonsense in the place of argument, and is too ridiculous even to admit of apology. It shows to what wretched shifts sophistry will resort.

Paul, however, dashes on, and the more he tries to reason the more he involves himself, and the more ridiculous he appears. “Hath not,” says he, “the potter power over the clay of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor?”

In this metaphor, and a most wretched one it is, Paul makes the potter to represent God; the lump of clay the whole human race; the vessels unto honor those souls “on whom He hath mercy because He will have mercy”; and the vessels unto dishonor, those souls “whom He hardeneth (for damnation) because He will harden them.” The metaphor is false in every one of its points, and if it admits of any meaning or conclusion, it is the reverse of what Paul intended and the Calvinists understand.

In the first place, a potter doth not, because he cannot, make vessels of different qualities, from the same lump of clay; he cannot make a fine china bowl, intended to ornament a sideboard, from the same lump of clay that he makes a coarse pan, intended for a close-stool. The potter selects his clays for different uses, according to their different qualities, and degrees of fineness and goodness.

Paul might as well talk of making gun-flints from the same stick of wood of which the gunstock is made, as of making china bowls from the same lump of clay of which are made common earthen pots and pans.

Paul could not have hit upon a more unfortunate metaphor for his purpose, than this of the potter and the clay; for if any inference is to follow from it, it is that as the potter selects his clay for different kinds of vessels according to the different qualities and degrees of fineness and goodness in the clay, so God selects for future happiness those among mankind who excel in purity and good life, which is the reverse of predestination.

In the second place there is no comparison between the souls of men and vessels made of clay; and, therefore, to put one to represent the other is a false position. The vessels, or the clay they are made from, are insensible of honor or dishonor. They neither suffer nor enjoy. The clay is not punished that serves the purpose of a close-stool, nor is the finer sort rendered happy that is made up into a punch-bowl.

The potter violates no principle of justice in the different uses to which he puts his different clays; for he selects as an artist, not as a moral judge; and the materials he works upon know nothing, and feel nothing, of his mercy or his wrath. Mercy or wrath would make a potter appear ridiculous, when bestowed upon his clay. He might kick some of his pots to pieces.

But the case is quite different with man, either in this world or the next. He is a being sensible of misery as well as of happiness, and therefore Paul argues like an unfeeling idiot when he compares man to clay on a potter’s wheel, or to vessels made therefrom: and with respect to God, it is an offense to His attributes of justice, goodness and wisdom to suppose that He would treat the choicest work of creation like inanimate and insensible clay. If Paul believed that God made man after His own image, he dishonors it by making that image and a brickbat to be alike.

The absurd and impious doctrine of predestination, a doctrine destructive of morals, would never have been thought of had it not been for some stupid passages in the Bible, which priestcraft at first, and ignorance since, have imposed upon mankind as revelation.

Nonsense ought to be treated as nonsense wherever it be found; and had this been done in the rational manner it ought to be done, instead of intimating and mincing the matter, as has been too much the case, the nonsense and false doctrine of the Bible, with all the aid that priestcraft can give, could never have stood their ground against the divine reason that God has given to man.

Doctor Franklin gives a remarkable instance of the truth of this in an account of his life, written by himself. He was in London at the time of which he speaks. “Some volumes,” says he, “against Deism, fell into my hands. They were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle’s lectures.”

“It happened that they produced on me an effect precisely the reverse of what was intended by the writers; for the arguments of the Deists, which were cited in order to be refuted, appeared to me more forcible than the refutation itself. In a word I soon became a perfect Deist.” – New York edition of Franklin’s Life, page 93.

All America, and more than all America, knows Franklin. His life was devoted to the good and improvement of man. Let, then, those who profess a different creed, imitate his virtues, and excel him if they can.

THOMAS PAINE.

Image above and transcript below from the original letter at the Library of Congress

---

New York Partition Street No 63

July 8th, 1808.

Dear Sir

On the 21st Jany I presented a Memorial to Congress and after waiting a considerable time and hearing nothing of it, I wrote to George Clinton Junior who presented the Memorial to Congress desiring some information of it. In his answers of March 19 he says, “I am desired by Mr. Holmes Chairman of the Committee of Claims to inform you That the business of the Memorial is progressing and that as soon as they received certain information from the President and Vice President a report would be made.”— No report however has been made, and I write this letter to request you to inform Mr. Holmes or the Committee of Claims have made any application to you on this subject.

I now pass on from this disagreeable affair to what I like much better – Public Affairs. The british Ministry have outschemed themselves. It is not difficult to see what the motive and object of that Ministry were in issuing the orders of Council. They expected those orders would force all the Commerce of the United States to England and then by giving permission to such Cargoes as they did not want for themselves to depart for the Continent of Europe, to raise a revenue out of those Countries and America. But instead of this they have lost revenue, that is they lost the revenue they used to receive from American imports, and instead of gaining all the commerce they have lost it all.

This being the case with the british Ministry it is natural to suppose they would be glad to tread back their steps if they could do it without too much exposing their ignorance and obstinacy. The Embargo law empowers the President to suspend its operation whenever he shall be satisfied that our ships can pass in safety. It therefore includes the Idea of empowering him to use means for arriving at that event. Suppose the President were to authorize Mr. Pinckney to propose to the british Ministry that the United States would negociate with France for rescinding the Milan Decree, on Condition the english Ministry would rescind their orders of Council and in that case the United States would recall their Embargo. France and England stand now at such a distance that neither can propose any thing to the other, neither are there any neutral powers to act as mediator. The U. S. is the only power that can act.

Perhaps the british Ministry, if they listen to the proposal will want to add to it the Berlin decree which excludes english Commerce from the Continent of Europe; but this we have nothing to do with, neither has it any thing to do with the Embargo. The british orders of Council and the Milan decree are parallel cases, and the cause of the Embargo.

Yours in friendship

Thomas Paine

from the Public Advertiser (New York), August 18, 1807.

THE election for Charter Officers last year was carried by the federal and quid trick of fortifications, and now the people are to be amused and duped to a new obstructions.

The only eligible mode of obstruction is that proposed by Franklin for the Delaware in ’76, an account of which was given in the Public Advertiser of the 6th, and republished in the Philadelphia Aurora of the 8th August.

The plan of obstruction now proposed for New York is by blocks, that is, by solid bodies of stone or earth in the manner of wharves. This was first suggested by Selah Strong, Chairman of the Committee of the Corporation, and in a publication by Mr. Stevens of Hobuck, which contains many just observations on ships and batteries, he adopts the same unfortunate idea of obstruction by blocks. The blocks to be “25 or 30 feet square or larger; at the distance of 50 or 60 feet from each other.” And the editor of the New York American Citizen in introducing Mr. Smith’s piece in his paper of Saturday last, says, Why not,”to make assurance doubly sure, to give us in fact protection, carry the obstruction by blocks or otherwise entirely cross from Robin’s Reef to Mud Flat.”

This, most certainly, would prevent Hostile Ships coming to the city, and it is equally as certain it would prevent the tide coming up and lay the wharves at New York dry, and be the ruin of all the towns on the North River that depend for commerce on tide water. This, the projectors of obstructors by blocks never thought of; but projectors should think of every thing or they will make ruinous work. If Selah Strong’s project is adopted New York is ruined, for the obstruction by blocks cannot afterwards be removed.

Every alteration made in the channel of a water course, whether it be in the natural current of a river or the current of a tide, will cause another alteration some where else.

If the obstruction be across the natural current of a river like the obstruction of a mill dam, the water will continue rising till it overtops the obstruction or overflow the country above; for as the daily supply from the source will continue the same it will have a passage somewhere.

If the obstruction be to the tide water, the effect will be, that the tide water will rise to the same height at the place where the obstruction is, as it did before and no higher, but the channel above the obstruction will be deprived of tide water.

The stone piers of a bridge lessen the quantity and extent of tide water above the bridge. This every body knows that knows anything of hydraulics. But to know it as a fact, if any person will look into Salmon’s Geography or Guthrie’s Geographical Grammar, he will find, in their account of rivers and bridges in England, that before Westminster bridge was built, which was begun in 1738, the tide flowed up to Kingston, about 17 or 18 miles above Westminster, but since the bridge has been built it flows no higher than Richmond, which is four miles short of Kingston. Now, if the piers of a bridge lessened the quantity of tide water, and shortened its extent four miles out of 17 or 18 miles, what must be the effect of a total, or even semi-total, obstruction by blocks of the channel between Robin’s Reef and Mud Flat on the wharves at the city and on the long course of the North River?

In projecting obstructions two things are absolutely necessary to be taken into view. The one is, the least possible obstruction to the water up or down; the other is, that the obstruction be such as can be removed afterwards. Neither of these entered the mind of the projectors of blocks, and both are embraced in the plan of Franklin. His frames had very little effect on the tide or the stream; and after the enemy went away they were taken up; but all the power and art of Man could not remove solid blocks of stone or earth 25 or 30 feet square, sunk several feet below the surface of the water.

If the channel between Robin’s Reef and Mud Flat is not more than about 36 feet, it can be obstructed as the Delaware was, and the obstruction can be defended by gun boats and batteries, and the militia can defend the shore as the people of Norfolk have done; but for men to be always employing themselves on imaginary fortifications or sculking behind, or within obstruction like a turtle within his shell, lest the crows should pick him, has a very cowardly appearance. It is not the spirit of “the times that tried men’s souls.”

THOMAS PAINE.

From the records of the Annals of Congress, 10th Congress, 2nd Session.

NEW YORK, March 7, 1808.

SIR:

I wrote you a week ago, prior to the date of this letter, respecting my memorial to Congress, but I have not yet seen an account of any proceedings upon it.

I know not who the Committee of Claims are, but if they are men of younger standing than “the times that tried men’s souls,” and, consequently, too young to know what the condition of the country was at the time I published Common Sense (for I do not believe independence would have been declared had it not been for the effect of that work) they are not capable of judging of the whole of the services of Thomas Paine. The President and Vice President can give you information on those subjects, so also can Mr. Smilie, who was a member of the Pennsylvania Legislature at the times I am speaking of. He knows the inconveniences I was often put to, for the old Congress treated me with ingratitude, they seemed to be disgusted at my popularity, and acted towards me as a rival instead of a friend.

The explanation I sent to the committee respecting a resolve of the old Congress while they sat at New York should be known to Congress, but it seems to me that the committee keep everything to themselves, and do nothing. If my memorial was referred to the Committee of Claims, for the purpose of losing it, it is unmanly policy. After so many years of service my heart grows cold towards America.

Yours, in friendship,

THOMAS PAINE.

Hon. Speaker of the House of Reps.

P. S. I repeat my request, that you would call on the Committee of Claims to bring in their report, and that Congress would decide upon it.