Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1862-11-18
The church 1ntelligencer-Bishop Polk.

4 =
We do not deem it WORTH WHILE to make any
extended reply to an article in the Church I"telli-
genoer of the 14h instant but justice to ourselves
requires that we should take some notice of that
| article. EfIHlJ -aEs
In our issue of the 7th, abiding to the tenden-
cies of the times, we quoted the following, among
other expressions, from correspondent Of the In
| telliaeneer: svI E.z,ss tsisa
s"If we will kneel gladly before our Right Rev
erend Holy Father, and humbly receive the Rite Of
Confirmation from those blood-staned hands, dyed
for us and for our liberties VINO is to condemn
Rather would we lift the hem Of that lawn whose
whiteness is crimsoned as well by his own noble,
generous blood, as by that of our cruel enemies, to
our lips as our fearful eyes and trembling tongues
breathe blessings upon the venerable head of that
Good Shepherd who, following the example Of
his Blessed Master has not hesiated to offer even
his life for his sheep"
We characterized a portion Of the foregoing as
"trenching closely upon blasphsmy." In reply,
the IteIlgeneey exhibits some feeling, and endeav-
OTIS to sustain its correspondent by drawing an
analogy between Bishop Polk and the late Rev. DR..
Drane, of Wilmington, who had given up his life
for his sheep" by his faithful attendance his
people during the prevalence of the epidemic il
that town. There can be no compassionate anal
ogy, it seems to us, between even Dr. Drane and
the Redeemer of the world; and there must be still
less between the Redeemer and Bishop, who is
engaged in war, no matter how just and holy that
war may be; The Good Shepherd who "gave his
life for the sheep" did so in an Office infinitely holy
and exalted. There may be an humble and faint
imitation of his general conduct while earth by
good Bishop or Minister in his labors and suffer
ings for his ock but the ascription of the office of
Christ in the remotest sense, whether "fgura-
lively" or by analogy or comparison, does seem TO
us to "trench closely upon blasphemy." The In
telgencer asks, "is it wrong to follow the example
of our Blessed Master?" Surely not but how
many do it? Does Bishop do it, who leads ar
mics, and thus necessarily neglects his flock? The
flock is the Church. Will the Lnteliigeneer say
that the Bishop is cor1maiaed to fight for his
church, We suppose not Then if he fight at
ALL it is necessarily in worldly sense; and if this
be So how it be said that he "giveth his life for
the sheep?" But says the Intelligeneer, the Ian
guage of the correspondent is merely fguratiVe,
or spoken in alusion." Grant it but the language
of the Saviour himself in this respect is gurative,
himself.
lift were becoming in US to do so, we might cite
numerous passages of the New Testament to sus-
tain US in our views but we really desire no con-
troversy with our contemporary, especially ON sub
jects outside the range of columns. That Bish-
op Polk is patriot, and an humble, sincere Chris
tan we entertain no doubt That he has an ap-f
proving conscience in leading armies and in she'd
ding blood we entertain as little doubt; but we can
not help thinking, upright ana unsel6sh as we be-
ieve him to he, that he is not altogether nsensbe
in the position heoccupieS to earthly ambition and
earthly applause We know that David although
he made preparations for the temple, was not per-
mitted to build it for the word of the Lord came to
him, saying, Thou hast shed blood abuadantly
and hast made great wars; chou shalt not build an
house unto my name, because thou hast shed much
blood upon the earth in my sight" Yet David,
though "a man of blood" and in some respects
of sin, was nevertheless honOred and magnified
in his son Solomon, and in his seed" have all
the nations of the earth been blessed"
But Bishop Polk is pot only patriot and a Chris:
tian-he is man of excellent common sense, and
devotedly attached. doubt to the primitiUe Eng
lish EpiscopaLian Church. We, therefore, believe
that he himself disapproVes Of such language as
that used by the correspondent of the Lntelgencer
Our contemporary says that he himself does not
"feel personally obliged" BY our article. We as
sure him that We had not the slightest idea of i'm
putting intentional blasphemy rreverence to him,
or to his correspondent We respect our cotempo-
rsry as an enlightened, thoughtful, and pious Chris
tian but he must pardon US, if he cannot see as
we do the tendency of the language referred to-
We confess we fee hurt by the tone of our cotem-
porary's article, and by Or two expressions in
it; but even if we were disposed to reply tarty or
unkindly, our respect for him and for his calling
would prevent US from doing so.
1t is, perhaps, proper that we should state that
our first article and the present one, embody our
views, and are from the pen of the Editor himself
Our Assistant who, like our contemporary, is
Minister of the Gospel, would be among the last to
avail himself of his position to raise discuss, in
secular newspaper, questions involving or leading
to religious controversy. ...