ONE or two readers have failed to see the meaning of our little paper on this subject in our April number and lest there may be more we give the explanation, we wrote to one of our correspondents. It read thus: —
“I observe that you fail to perceive our meaning or to see the distinction between Christian doctrine and moral practice. I also observe that you take for your text a statement or sentiment, by way of, in the B. H. for April, 1880, which does not exist. We write about ' the Church:' you put it as if we had used the term `Christianity.' One could not work intelligently for the Lord who did not own that all professing Christians are not Christians in truth; and the closing paragraph of our article distinctly refers to that. A remnant of the Church is clearly a thought foreign to Scripture, as I wrote to you; for in one aspect of the Church, it is the body of Christ, and of that body there could be no remnant in the sense of which you write of one. You write about something of which our paper does not treat. As far as we are concerned, you are fighting a thing of your own making."
In the paper our correspondent sent to us he quotes " the language of a beloved brother," which we give to show that (whoever he is) he is not in opposition to us in what we have said either above, or in our pages: "there clearly is a remnant in Christendom, that is, all nominal Christians will not possess the privileges of true ones. And they are in this sense a remnant. But the results being different, it seems different, because the Jewish remnant remains on earth to become as such the nation, whereas true Christians going up to heaven, never appear as a distinct body in possession of their privileges, as all the dead saints will be raised up and go with them. But in the time of faith, the faithful will be just as much practically a remnant as the Jews will be. To deny the thing is to make me stay in the camp, and go on with all evil. To say there is not spiritually a remnant in the midst of Christianity is to give up life and spirituality as needed, and makes purifying one's self from vessels to dishonor wrong." We agree with the writer when he says: —" In the time of faith the faithful will be just as much practically a remnant as the Jews will be." But “practically a remnant " and " a remnant in Christendom" point to another thing than our article treats of. It says " turning our thoughts to the Church [not " Christendom "], it is manifest the term remnant would not apply for the assembly is viewed as existing as a whole on earth. Much instruction we may surely derive from the remnant of Haggai's days, but a remnant or the remnant, is a term one would not use with reference to the Church." But though this is so, one would not object to the use of it, by way of accommodation to faithful saints, in " Christendom " as when this writer says " There is a remnant in Christendom." Of the Church there can be no remnant. In Christendom there has always been what answers to one spiritually, and will always be: there have always been those the Lord owns and approves of in the midst of the great Christian profession, and those He disowns and disapproves of. We admit fully that there must be a company answering " spiritually to a remnant in the midst of Christianity" or else we and others gathered to the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, have been acting without any Scripture warrant.
But the term remnant is not used of the Church of God, nor could it be used of that which in one aspect of it is the body of Christ. We have full Scripture warranty for part of any local assembly, or of the general assembly being viewed as the only faithful ones. See Rev. 2:2424But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden. (Revelation 2:24). But the special feature of a remnant, as set forth in the paper referred to, all we think must see, cannot be predicated of the Church of God.