d take courage. But when, in any view, we
were about to be cast upon a troubled sea, requiring the most skilful
and trusted pilots, what are we to do without them? Monday morning,
17th. Why should I send you this,--partly founded on mistake, for later
telegrams lead us to hope that Mr. Seward will survive,--and reading,
too, more like a sermon than a letter? But my thoughts could run upon
nothing else but these terrible things; and, sitting at my desk, I let
my pen run, not merely dash down things on the paper, as would have been
more natural. But for these all-absorbing horrors, I should have [281]
written you somewhat about the Convention. It was certainly a grand
success. I regretted only one thing, and that was that the young men
went away grieved and sad. . . . I think, too, that what they asked was
reasonable. That is, if both wings were to fly together, and bear on the
body, no language should have been retained in the Preamble which both
parties could not agree to. But no more now. Love to your wife and A.
Yours ever,

ORVILLE DEWEY.

To Mrs. David Lane.

SHEFFIELD, Ally 19, 1865.

BE it known to you, my objurgatory friend, that I have finished a sermon
this very evening,--a sermon of reasonings, in part, upon this very
matter on which you speak; that is, the difference of opinion in the
Convention. "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." Radicalism
and Conservatism. The Convention took the ground that both, as they
exist in our body, could work together; it accepted large contributions
in money from both sides, and it is not necessary to decide which side
is right, in order to see that a statement of faith should have been
adopted in which both could agree. I was glad, for my part, to find that
the conservative party was so strong. I distrust the radical more than
I do the conservative tendencies in our church; still I hope we are too
just, not to say liberal, to hold that mere strength can warrant us in
doing any wrong to the weaker party. [282] To be sure, if I thought, as
I suppose--and--do, that the radical ground was fatal to Christianity, I
should oppose it in the strongest way. But the Convention did not assume
that position. On the contrary, it said, "Let us co-operate; let us put
our money together, and work together as brethren." Then we should not
have forced a measure through to the sore hurt and pain of either party.

As to the main question between them,--how Jesus is to be regarded