@Silly Uncle Wayne , let's review a few arguments, and invite you to respond to them. Please do explain which parts of this you find incorrect, and on what authority you disagree with the Bible, with the prophets of God, with the disciples, and with Jesus Himself on the question of slavery.
Slavery forms a vital element of the Divine Revelation to man. Its institution, regulation, and perpetuity, constitute a part of many of the books of the Bible.
God instituted it in the days of Noah, and gave it His sanction again at Mt. Sinai. His Son commended it during his ministry on earth. The holy apostle Paul, exhorted his son Timothy to preach it; and Peter teaches a most important precept as to its obligations.
If God, through Noah, after the flood, and at Sinai, through the Law—if Christ during his ministry, and the apostles in their writings, instituted, regulated and promulgated slavery—it is not less imperative on me, to “declare the whole counsel of God” on this subject, than it is on any other, which the wise and beneficent Creator has seen proper to reveal to man.
...
More than two thousand years before the christian era, slavery was instituted by decree of heaven, and published to the world by Noah, a “preacher of righteousness.” Here is the decree, Genesis 9:25-27, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants, shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.” The Jews descended from Shem, the Europeans and Americans from Japheth, the Africans from Ham, the father of Canaan.
To show that the above language was the announcement of heaven’s decree concerning slavery, and that Noah was speaking as he was moved by the Holy Spirit, we have only to refer to its explanation and fulfillment by the descendants of Shem, as recorded in the 25th chapter of Leviticus. God gave to Abraham, a descendant of Shem, and to his seed after him the land of the Canaanites, into the possession of which they came in the days of Joshua. After the children of Israel came into the possession of the land, God gave them the following instruction as to bringing the people into bondage: “Both thy bond men and thy bond maids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you (these were the descendants of Canaan, and hence called Canaanites), of them shall ye BUY BOND MEN AND BOND MAIDS. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land; and they shall be your possessions. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for possession; they shall be your bond men forever.” (verses 44-46)
Here is a decree from the Creator, giving to one man the right of holding another in involuntary servitude. Man holding his fellow man as his property, and enjoined to perpetuate that property by inheritance to his children, forever.
Three points are here gained.
1. The establishment of slavery by divine decree.
2. The right to buy and sell men and women into bondage.
3. The perpetuity of the institution by the same authority.
A theocratic government, that is, one in which God, as the ruler, gives immediate direction, was established over the Israelites and continued for about four hundred years. The government was fully organized at Mount Sinai. The Constitution (called the Decalogue) given on that occasion, is considered the basis of all good law, and the standard of moral action, in every age of the world down to the present time – it is as of universal application as the gospel of Christ. It guarantees to the slaveholder the peaceable and unmolested right to his slave property, in language as emphatic as does the Constitution of the United States. Hear its enactment on this subject.
“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house; thou shalt not covet they neighbor’s wife, nor his MAN SERVANT, not his MAID SERVANT, nor his ox, nor his ass, not anything that is thy neighbor’s”
Is a man entitled to the unmolested occupation of his house? This Divine Constitution guarantees to him the same right to his servants. Has any man the right to interfere with the domestic relation of husband and wife? Equally secure is the relation of master and servant made by this enactment of heaven. Should a man’s right to the exclusive and perpetual possession of his ox, or his ass, or of any other property of which he may be possessed, be secured to him by constitutional enactment? No more so, determined the unerring wisdom of the most high God, than the right of masters to their slaves.
Had God, the Great Law Giver, been opposed to slavery, he would perhaps have said, “thou shalt not hold property in man: thou shalt not enslave thy fellow being, for all men are born free and equal.” Instead of reproving the sin of covetousness, he would have denounced the sin of slavery; but instead of this denunciation, when He became the Ruler of his people, He established, regulated and perpetuated slavery by special enactment, and guaranteed the unmolested rights of masters to their slaves by Constitutional provision.
...
The blessed Saviour descended from a slave-holder, Abraham. This “father of the faithful,” held as many bondmen, “born in his house and bought with his money,” as perhaps any slaveholder in the South. When he was chosen out, as the one “in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed,” not a word of Divine disapprobation, on account of his being a slave-holder was uttered.
His descendants, the Jews, up to the time of their national dispersion, were as emphatically a slave-holding people as we Georgians are.
The only qualification which is due to this remark, is founded on the captivity and wars which robbed them of much of their property. Such was the case when the Saviour came among them.
He reproved them for their sins. Calling them the works of the flesh and of the devil. He denounced idolatry, covetousness, adultery, fornification, hypocrisy, and many other sins of less moral turpitude, but never once reproved them for holding slaves; though He alluded to it frequently, yet never with an expression of the slightest disapprobation.
...
The following language is said by Paul, to be the teachings of our Saviour … Let those whose are under the yoke, as bondmen, esteem their masters worthy of all honor, lest reproach be brought upon the name of God and his doctrine – and let those whose masters are believers, not despise them because they are brethren, but serve them with the more subjection, because they who claim the benefit (of their labor) are believing and beloved. THUS TEACH AND EXHORT.” – 1 Tim. 6:1-3
Here we are taught:
1. That the disciples of Christ held slaves.
2. That this slavery was in accordance with the doctrine or teachings of God.
3. That a failure on the part of they servants to esteem their masters worthy of honor, or obedience, was considered by Christ, a reproach to the name and doctrine of God. Because He had commanded it, and whosoever disobeyed reproached his Maker.
4. That christianity did not oblige the master to liberate his slave, but upon the contrary bound the slave to serve his master with the “more subjection.” …
Lastly, Timothy was enjoined by Paul to explain and enforce in his ministry the above instructions of Christ.
...
Eph. 6:5-8. Servants, (Bondsmen,) be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling with singleness of heart, as unto Christ; not with eye service as men pleasers; but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, with good will doing service, as unto the Lord and not to men, knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.
These facts are here taught.
1. That slaves are required by their religious obligations, to obey their masters. The master then has a corresponding right to command, else the servant would be under no obligation to obey – slavery is here endorsed as divinely right, because to the master is given the divine right to command.
Then the Divine right to slavery is here expressly given – but God never grants to any man the divine right to sin. Therefore slavery is not sin.
2. That in obeying the master, the slave is obeying Christ. “In singleness of your heart as unto Christ – doing the will of God from the heart!” A cheerful and hearty obedience to the master is a part of the slaves duty to God. His religion enjoins it. But his obligation depends upon his servitude – were there no servitude there would be no obligation. If the servitude is wrong and wicked, then the obligation is of no force, it is only the command of an usurper – who violates the natural rights of man. But God says the servant is bound not alone by the superior will of the master, but by Divine law, to obey from the heart, his masters commandments – God’s law binds no man to sin, or to do wrong at the command of another, but requires him to avoid the very appearance of evil. His commendation of slavery is here found in his enforcement of its obligations.
3. The apostle also teaches the truth here that God will reward the slave for his faithfulness to this master.
So profoundly is Paul impressed with the right of masters to control, and the duty of slaves to obey, that he urges upon Titus, (2:9-10) a young minister, as one of the sacred obligations of his high office, to “exhort servants to be obedient to their own masters, and to please them well in all things, not answering again (i.e. not replying to or questioning the master’s right) not purloining (i.e. not stealing) but showing all good fidelity, that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.” It is remarkable that this apostle should invariably conclude his exhortation to servants, by appealing to their obligations to God, as the incentive to obedience and faithfulness to their masters, clearly proving that disobedience to masters is rebellion against God. Hitherto, Paul has not, in so many words, given any instruction as to the duty of servants towards masters whose deportment to them is harsh and oppressive. I refer, therefore, for specific instruction upon this subject, to the writings of another apostle (1 Peter 2:18,19). “Servants, be subject to your masters, with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward, for this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God, endure grief and suffering wrongfully.”
Here is the inspired injunction making it the duty of a bondman, which is to be performed in good conscience toward God, to submit quietly to the ill treatment of a churlish or bad tempered master. This obligation of the slave does not rest upon the right of his master thus to treat him, for he has no such right, either moral or legal, but is bound to “give unto them that which is just and equal;” but the servants obligation is derived from the moral and religious duty, which binds him to be faithful to God and man.
I have now proven clearly from the sacred pages of inspiration,
1. That slavery was instituted by God, who accompanied it with his decree making it perpetual.
2. That Christ recognized its existence, enforced its obligations, and regulated its connections.
3. That Paul and Peter, inspired apostles, elaborated upon the subject, and showed the religious obligations under which servants are bound to obey their masters.
...
I desire to meet one plausible, but specious objection to slavery, urged by the abolitionists before I take my seat.
It is said that one single passage in the gospel, imperatively requires every master at once to emancipate his slaves. It is recorded in Mat. 7:12. “Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them, for this is the law and the prophets.”
it is thought, that if the master would desire liberty, were he a slave, he is bound by this rule, to liberate his slave. But his argument is specious, and this construction, if applied to the various relations of life will subvert all the laws and regulations of society and governments.
A criminal is arraigned, tried and found guilty of a violationof the law – but the judge would not desire to be punished were he in the criminal’s place – is he bound therefore to release him? ….
A desire entertained by a servant to be set at liberty, is an unlawful desire, because its accomplishment, would violate the “law” which enjoins perpetual servitude ….
