New national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1870-1874, 1872-11-28
The Christian Recorder.

The Reverend b. Il. Tanner, NJ. A., with
his grace-proud title of Reverend no
longer consents to our calling him "broth-
err" though he is brother, brother editor
and a brother man, and somewhat weak and
malicious brother at that, continues to amuse
his readers and his own Imagination with the
''velvety-brown" falsehood, and patheti-
cally asks ''IIow he can help it ?" to which
the New NATIONAL ERA responds in just
two WORKSHOP lying.
The perfect muddle into which our refer
ence to Scriptural mention of color has
Tanner, NJ. A., may be seen by the follow
ing, which we copy from the Christian Re
cor1er. On perusing it we think our readers
will form pretty correct opinion of the Rev.
ercnd Il. Il. Tanner, NJ. A., and of his abil-
ity to grapple with the question he under
takes to discuss:
But the NEW NATIONAL ERA "faces
about" Hear what it says:
1.-The Christian Recorder takes oflcnse at
any reference of ours in regard to color, but
he has nothing to say against the Bible in
which the negro is classed with the leopard
as little able to change his color, as the lat
ter his spots, implying that even among the
prophets of his religion that the negro's color
was hated one.
'Let Brother Tanner answer his Bible
successfully and we shall have some patience
with his reference to us ON the black ques-
| ton"
What reply shall we make to all this I?
| Well, several.
And first. We do not take oflense at any
reference Mr.. Douglass may be pleased to
make in regard to color. The idea, that
| even the descendant of a negro should quarrel
with the blood in his own veins, is too farci-
| cal, to awaken offense. Yet many do thus
quarrel, and they must not get angry, when
people, whose heads are level, ieer and
| laugh.
Second. Not even the disciple of scien-
| fist, much less a professed master, ought to
object to being classed with the leopard. The
chief ofscientists says man was dereloped from
monkey! Naturally good on run, Fred
erick, keep up with your company.
Lastly. We are brought to face Mr.. Doug
lass infidelity. Before we presume to an
swer for our Bible, We enter our protest
against him, approprating any of its revela-
tions. In theory he dspenses with them, let
him do the same in practice. He calls us
brother" What does he mean? Brother
by adoption into the family of God? He
don't believe in any such thing. Brother,
physically, that is, of the same blood? He
can't mean that, for that is revealed truth,
and he don't believe in revelation. Nature,
which is the ERA's Bible and its god, don't
teach that; but directly, the reverse. Ma
ture teaches that "white'' blood produces
white men; and "black" blood, black men.
If then, all blood be the same, why this dis
tinction-why is it impossible for the Ethio-
plan to change his color? No, Sir Fred
erick, you should not pillow with our heifer,
nor on our ground, unless, like the men of
| Athens, you concluded to accept the doctrine
of the Gospel, with its accompanying moral
ity, to wit, that God ''hath made of one blood
| all nations of men,"
But we are invited to answer for our Bible
and the religion it inculcates. And so, it
seems that the race of Goliath is not vet dead
Their challenging voices may still be heard
Well; faith assures us that God is still in
Israel. The charge made is, that even
among the prophets the negro's color was a
hated one. What are the facts in the case ?
They are found in jeremiah. In chapter
thirteenth, verse twenty-third, the simple
statement is made, that they acho are dccus-
toned to do eril, can no more do good, than can
the Ethiopian change his color, or tie leopard his
spots. Forsooth the prophet recognizes this
fact, our Brother Douglass 1--WE can call him
that in part-would that we could call it alto
gether) lifts up his hands in holy horror, and
says the prophet hated the Ethiopian's color.
No, he did no such thing. AS we have said,
he simply recognized a fact. And herein is
found the pre-eminent excellence of the Bible.
1t is a book of facts. Not an apology for
them; not an explanation of them. A SIM
pie statement. OF all the sacred writer's,
Paul is the only one who even seems to have
expressed an opinion. In no little measure
Fact recognition, was the highest cultus OF
their inspiration.
If the very reverend writer of the above
could only find in his heart the same charity
for those who speak of 'velvety brown
as he does for jeremiah, when he speaks o.
the Ethiopian's labor, we should give hin
credit-at least for common UNCONSTITUTIONAL
we cannot accept either his logic or learning
on the subject.