Truth Magazine

Our beloved and highly esteemed James Rogers Cope changed worlds on June 18, 1999. It is like the passing of an era. He was my beloved brother in Christ, and a true friend of many years. I first met Jim and Georgia Deane when I entered Freed-Hardeman College where he was teaching in the fall of 1948. Harold Trimble married a girl from my home congregation, and he and Frances had attended Freed-Hardeman under brother Cope. He was preaching for the Bemis church near Freed-Hardeman. Harold preached many times at my home congregation, and he took me under his wing and introduced me to James Cope. He ad- vised me to take as many classes as possible under brother Cope. However, my studying under him was limited to one year, for at the end of my first year, he became president of Florida Christian College (Fall 1948). But, I profited greatly from his teaching in the classes I had with him. Several Freed-Hardeman students transferred to Florida Christian College with brother Cope. He asked me to come with him, but I had commitments that prevented it.

Through the years, however, our paths crossed and we developed a friendship that endured and grew stronger with the passing of time. We worked together in gospel meetings, and he was greatly responsible for my moving to work with the 9th Avenue church in St. Petersburg. At that time he was preaching for the Diston Ave. church in St. Petersburg. This afforded many opportunities for us to work together and deepen our friendship. He, some of the members at Diston, and I became fishing partners. Jim loved to fish, and we had some very fruitful and fun trips out on the Gulf of Mexico. Often when the pressure of his work became intense and he needed to get away, he would knock on our door with a paper sack in his hand containing his pajamas. When I would open the door, he would say, “I have come to spend the night and go fishing.”

Jim was an outstanding teacher. Very informal, yet a deep thinker. He had a wonderful mind. His classes were open, and students were urged to participate. Students were impressed with his humble spirit; never reluctant to say “I don’t know,” and always ready to change his mind if found to be mistaken. He challenged his students to think for themselves, and not just accept without further investigation what they had always been taught. His textual study classes were unique. Sometimes we would spend days on a single verse. It would be explored from every angle. There were usually one or two in the class whose knowledge was much less than they thought it was. Brother Cope enjoyed toying with such, not to embarrass them, but to prod them to do more study and to think for themselves. It was really a tragedy when pressing administrative responsibilities took brother Cope out of the classroom. Many young minds were thus deprived of the influence of one of the ablest teachers I ever had.

Jim Cope was a handsome young man when I first met him, and a very popular teacher. He had recently married Georgia Deane Combs, a beautiful young Texan, and Connie, their first child, was born while he was teaching at Freed-Hardeman. Jim was not only a popular teacher, but he was the preacher for the College church which met in the college auditorium. He was an excellent preacher, and the auditorium was always filled to capacity. Brother L.L. Briggance, a long-time teacher at Freed-Hardeman and a grammarian of the highest order, once said, “Jim Cope has one of the best commands of the English language of anyone I have known.” Coming from L.L. Briggance, that was, indeed, a high complement especially in light of the fact that he had been associated for so many years with N.B. Hardeman who was known as “the prince of preachers.” Jim was well-known for his “long-winded” sermons. He dealt thoroughly with any subject he undertook.

While Jim was the president of Florida College and an outstanding classroom teacher, he never ceased being a gospel preacher. He was dedicated to the preaching of the Word. He preached for many of the churches in the Tampa area and held gospel meetings all over the country. He preached quite a bit even after his short-term memory began to fail. He said, “I can still preach but I have to use copious notes and stay close to them.” I heard him preach for the last time in 1994. I was working with the Palm River church in Tampa, and he was attending there. We asked him to preach. It was a good lesson.

Jim was a very effective speaker. He could move one to tears one minute and laughter the next. He was a tender- hearted man. He often wept while speaking of things that touched his emotion. While teaching at Florida College and being closely associated with him, I wrote him a lengthy letter telling of my high esteem for him and how he had influenced my life for good. I mentioned the tremendous contribution he had made to the cause of Christ, and that Florida College had “James R. Cope” written all over it. I never realized how this letter would touch his emotion. He mentioned it over and over, and said he frequently read it and wept. It was something he needed to hear at that stage in his life, and I am so thankful that I wrote it. It brought some joy to his life when he needed it most.

Brother Briggance’s evaluation of his command of the English language was manifested vividly in Jim’s writings. He was a prolific writer, a genuine word smith. He authored several tracts and booklets which received wide circulation. Brother Cope and others at Florida College began the Preceptor periodical in November of 1951. It carried many of Jim Cope’s well-written articles. It became a very popular periodical, and was instrumental in clarifying many of the issues of the day. Brother Cope did much of his best writing in that magazine.

While I lived in St. Petersburg, Jim and I had opportunities to engage in many Bible studies. Members of the Diston church would sometimes have the Copes and the Needhams for dinner for a social occasion, but mainly to hear our studies of Bible subjects. We would sometimes continue until midnight. These were both enjoyable and profitable.

Jim had many “loves” in his life. He had an intense love for the Lord, his family, Florida College, education, and young people. He labored hard and long for the college. He struggled through the years with its financial problems which are quite common to all private schools. Because the school refused to accept money from churches, he and the college became the lightning rod for a liberal effort to arrest the college from his control. There were many battles, and at times it looked like the school would be lost to the liberals, but through Jim’s hard work, wise ways, and the help of many brethren it was saved and became the only college operated by brethren that neither solicited nor accepted subsidies from churches. Whatever good the school has accomplished stands largely as a monument to the life and labors of James R. Cope. Harry Pickup, Sr. worked for the college in public relations for many years. He once said, “James Cope is the most able administrator I ever knew.”

Following Jim’s retirement in 1982, his short-term memory began to deteriorate. It seemed to escalate following the death of his beloved Georgia Deane. During that time I taught at the college and saw Jim almost every day at chapel. We spent a good deal of time reminiscing of “the old days.” His long-term memory remained well intact, and we talked of our days at Freed Hardeman, of L.L Briggance, and other members of the faculty. We talked of N.B. Hardeman and Foy E. Wallace, Jr. and the major battle they waged over church subsidies to schools and other human institutions, and how this initiated the lengthy debate over benevolent societies, congregational cooperation, and other issues that led to a major division in the brotherhood.

Jim Cope was a country boy who did exceptionally well. He was raised on a farm, and wore his heritage well. I once heard him tell a young man, “Don’t ever rise above your raising. “That is, don’t ever feel ashamed of where you came from. Keep the basic values you were taught by your parents.” While keeping his country roots, Jim could mix with the humble and with men of distinction. He often did. When Roy Acuff ran for governor of Tennessee, Jim was chosen to introduce him on the steps of the court house in Henderson, Tennessee.

Jim’s loss of short-term memory was thought to be the onset of Alzheimer’s disease, and sure enough it was. His last days were spent in the Clare Bridge nursing home in Tampa with little or no knowledge of his past, or the people he had known. But Jim never forgot his interest in the souls of men, for even after he entered the nursing home, he held Bible classes with some of his fellow patients.

In the course of our earthly sojourn we meet many people who influence our lives — some for good and some not so good. Most of us can list five or ten persons who influenced us for good far above everyone else we chance to meet. Among those who have had a life-lasting positive effect on my life, I would have to put Jim Cope somewhere close to the top. Jim Cope left vivid and well defined footprints on the sands of time. The memory of his work and the imprint of his life will endure for generations to come. His influence will live on in the lives of the thousands he touched. May God bless his memory and his family in such a great loss. We hope to meet again.

For some time I, and others, have expressed concern about the kind of preaching that is being done in many places today. In expressing this concern I have frequently said that much of the preaching that is being done today could be done in any denominational church without any change and it would be accepted.

Some have interpreted this concern as saying that our “difference from denominations” is the measuring stick for our preaching. No one that I know who has expressed this concern over the lack of distinctive preaching has suggested that this is the measuring stick for our preaching nor have they lamented over the lack of “church of Christ” doctrine in the preaching being done. In fact, the men I have heard expressing concern over the kind of preaching being done have been the ones who have spoken out against the denominational concept of the church and are the ones who emphasize the distinctive message of God’s word. They are the ones insisting that the word of God is the only standard of authority and that we must respect that authority. When this kind of preaching is done on a regular basis you will be teaching men and women what they must do to be saved; that Christ is the way and that he is the Savior of the church (Acts 2:38; John 14:6; Eph. 5:25). We are not talking about lessons from time to time that may deal with some Bible character or lessons from his life. We are talking about a compromising spirit on the part of far too many who will not preach what the word of God teaches on the plan of salvation, the church, the work of the church, the worship of the church, the organization of the church, or the truth on many other moral and doctrinal issues.

I am ready to affirm that when we preach the gospel in its purity and completeness that teaching will not be accepted by denominationalists, not because we have sought to “offend the denominations,” but because it is the truth. Brethren, don’t be deceived into thinking that the willing ness of denominations to accept certain lessons you may preach is an indication of their “closeness to the truth.” That acceptance is based on the fact that the particular lesson may be something with which they agree. For example, I could go to a Baptist Church and preach a lesson showing from the Scriptures that baptism is an immersion and every word I say be true and be accepted by them but that would not mean they were “close to the truth” on what the Bible teaches concerning baptism. They still deny the truth on baptism and its purpose.

We need to realize that when we seem to be closer to the denominations than we used to be it is not due to the denominations coming closer to the truth; it is due to our leaving the truth. It is a shame when men are criticized and misrepresented when they make an appeal to get back to preaching that will convict men and women of their sins and teach them what they must do to be saved. This kind of preaching will not be accepted by the denominations but it will be pleasing to God and that is what is of real importance.

By Donald Townsley

The Bible doctrine of divine providence has been neglected by gospel preachers of our generation. In days gone by this subject was given a more prominent place in the preaching and writing of brethren. I believe we have reaped some tragic consequences because of our ignorance on this subject. Extremes have arisen and found fertile soil in which to grow because of the ignorance that exists. One example is the “direct operation of the Holy Spirit” movement. I do not believe false teaching on this subject would have found ready acceptance by some if they had understood God’s providential working. Another consequence of not understanding this subject is the gloom, depression and anxiety that afflict the hearts of so many of the children of God. If they could only understand this Bible doctrine and have the conviction that “the Lord is at hand” (near, Phil. 4:5) and that he really cares for us (1 Pet. 5:7), it would do away with the insecurity, fear, depression, and despair that exist in the hearts of so many.

In order to define what “divine providence” is, let us first point out what it is not. Divine providence is not a miracle. A miracle is an act of God superseding or suspending a natural law. A miracle was a visible sign which indicated to all men that a super-human power was at work in that particular thing. An example of a miracle is the Lord feeding five thousand people with five loaves and two fishes (John 6:8-14). Miracles were for the purpose of confirming the Word (Mark 16:17-20). The Word was given in its completeness and confirmed, then miracles ceased (1 Cor. 13:8-13).

Providence differs from a miracle in that its ends are brought about by means of the established laws of God through ordinary channels. Providence is the preservation, care, and government that God exercises over all things that he has created in order that they may accomplish the end for which they were created.

God’s providence does not eliminate following the word of God in every detail. God, through his word, brings about conversion and edification of his people (Rom. 1:16; Acts 20:32). This does not eliminate our using all the care, sense and skill that we can exercise. Neither does it eliminate the free-moral agency of man. God’s providence works with two kinds of wills — willing wills and opposing wills. Good men suffer many times at the hands of evil men — evil men meaning it for evil, but God in his providence can overrule it for the good of the innocent. Joseph, in the Old Testament, is a good example of God overruling the evil intent and actions of his brothers for good. Joseph said to his brothers: “But as for you, ye thought evil against me; But God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive” (Gen. 50:20). The psalmist said, “He (God) sent a man before them, even Joseph, who was sold for a servant” (Ps. 105:17). This example of Joseph is a good commentary on Romans 8:28: “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are called according to his purpose.” This verse does not mean that everything that happens to a Christian is good within itself, but that God, through his providence, can ultimately overrule even the bad for our good. He did this for Joseph. Why deny he can do it for us?

Let us look at scriptural proof of divine providence: God makes the sun to rise and sends the rain and fruitful seasons (Matt 5:45; Acts 14:17); in God we live and move and have our being (Acts 17:28); God gives rain, makes the grass to grow and feeds the beasts and ravens (Ps. 147:89); God knows when a sparrow falls to the ground (Matt. 10:29; Luke 12:6); God knows every hair on our heads (Luke 12:7); God’s eyes are over the righteous and his ears are open to their prayers (1 Pet. 3:12); God rules in the affairs of nations: “the most High ruleth in the kingdoms of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will” (Dan. 4:25); John said that Christ was “the prince of the kings of the earth” (Rev. 1:5); Paul said, “For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God” (Rom. 13:1). These verses should prove to any honest man that God is providentially working in the world today.

It is upon the belief in God’s providence that prayer is founded. We pray because we believe that God will hear our prayers and that he has the power to grant our petitions through his providence. He does not answer our prayers with miracles, but through his providence — working through his established laws and ordinary channels. We pray for doors to be opened through which we can enter to preach the gospel (Col. 4:3; 1 Cor. 16:9; 2 Cor. 2:12), and God opens these doors through his providence in answer to our prayers. We pray for our daily food (Matt. 6:11); we labor with our hands (Eph. 4:28), and God will provide our needs through his providence. We pray for the sick (Jas. 5:14-18) , and God heals the sick, providentially. We pray that we may not be led into temptation and for God to deliver us from temptation (Matt. 6:13; 1 Cor. 10:13; Matt. 26:41), and God, through his providence, will make a way of escape in answer to our prayer; but we must use the way of escape. God will not deliver a man from temptation un- less that man wills him to do so. We, as God’s people, need to have faith that the Lord is at hand, not a far off (Phil. 4:5, 6; Jer. 23:23-24), and that we in everything can make our requests known to God and he will providentially answer our prayers (1 John 5:14-15).

Jesus gives proof of divine providence to the Christian in Matthew 6:24-34. In verse 25 of this chapter he tells us to take no thought (or be not anxious) for our lives, about what we will eat, drink, or put on. He tells us that God, who gave us our lives and our bodies, will give us food and raiment. Jesus is not teaching laziness here; we are to work, doing our best (Eph. 4:28), then leave the rest to God. In verse 26 Jesus tells us to “behold the fowls of the air,” that God feeds them; we are of much more value than fowls, so God will feed and take care of us. In verse 7 Jesus says that worry will not add one cubit to our stature, so to worry about what we are going to eat, drink, or wear is needless because God will provide it through his providence. In verses 28-30 he shows how foolish it is to worry about raiment; if God clothes the lilies of the field he will most assuredly clothe us. In verses 31 and 32 he tells us that God knows we have need of food, drink, and clothing; so we are not to worry about them like the Gentiles do because we know that God will supply them. Jesus then gives the Christian the proper course to pursue in verse 33: “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness” and God, through his providence, will supply our temporal needs. He said, “Take therefore no thought for the morrow” (v. 34), because God will providentially care for us.

Conclusion

Friend, if we are Christians, faith in God’s providential care will take the worry out of our lives. Those who walk by faith take God at his word, and sincerely believe that the things he has promised he is able to perform (Rom. 4:21). Do you believe that God works through his providence today? Too many Christians have “little faith” (Matt. 6:30) in God’s providential care. We all need more faith that his eyes are over the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayers (1 Pet. 3:12); that he is near (Phil. 4:5), and that we can cast our cares upon him for he does care for us (1 Pet. 5:7).

By Mike Willis

In this series of articles, I have been trying to call attention to the factional mindset that is sometimes creates division and dissension in the Lord’s churches. In trying to identify factionalism, I am listing several characteristics of the factional brother. Factionalism is difficult for us to identify because it flies under beautiful banners — “standing for the truth,” “defending the faith,” or “opposing liberalism.” Because none of us wishes to discourage loyalty to the truth, we sometimes are too tolerant of the factional man. By the time one recognizes the dam- age he is doing, the time may have already passed to stop his divisive ways. We hope that listing these attributes of the factional mindset will be helpful in identifying those who are dividing churches so that sinful division can be stopped.

1. The factional man has no place in his thinking for any present day issues that fall into the category of Romans 14. A factional man can usually correctly explain the meaning of Romans 14 and make correct application of the text to the issues described in Romans 14 and other New Testament issues (such as circumcision, forbidding to marry, etc.). However, he is not able to identify anything that he believes as a Romans 14 issue. Everything he believes is a matter of faith with which no one can disagree and be faithful to the Lord. Romans 14 was originally written to meet this very challenge.

2. The factional man makes every judgment decision with which he does not agree tantamount to apostasy. In areas of application, a factional brother tends to make every judgment issue a test of one’s faithfulness to God. In a case where two brethren are united on a principle of truth but disagree over whether another man is a mistaken believer or a false teacher on the same point, the factional brother’s judgment must be the correct one and all those who disagree are compromisers violating 2 John 9-11. Such a brother is willing to divide a church over his judgment about the other man because everyone who disagrees with him is a liberal apostate.

3. The factional man has trouble understanding that general authority is just as surely Bible authority for an action as is specific authority. Certainly this has been true historically. Those who created dissension in the church over multiple containers, Bible classes, and located preachers were looking for a specific example of a church having a Bible class, using multiple containers, or a preacher working with a church with elders. General authority in these areas was not judged adequate.

4. The factional man can justify sinful conduct under the banner of “standing for the truth.” Everyone would agree that such things as envying, strife, and division are works of the flesh (1 Cor. 3:3). All would agree that “hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies” are works of the flesh (Gal. 5:20). However, these sinful behaviors can be obviously practiced in the heat of pressing one’s opinion to the point of dividing the church and all of them be justified under the banner, “He was standing for the truth.” Standing for the truth does not produce sinful fruit. If strife, seditions, and heresies are occurring in the local church, those who are guilty are not “standing for the truth,” without regard to the issue before them. Where the fruit of one’s “stand for the truth” is a refusal to speak to one’s brother, driving brethren into parties, destroying elderships, destroying men’s desire to serve as elders and preachers or even be a Christian, and such like things, one can rest assured that this is not “standing for the truth.” Jesus taught that one should judge a tree by its fruits (Matt. 7:15-16). These are not the fruit that the truth produces.

5. The factional man majors in minors and is out of balance (Matt. 23:23). Regarding the Pharisees, Jesus said, “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone” (Matt. 23:23). Factional men tend to develop telescopic vision — all that they see is the one issue on which they are focused. A man may be a godly brother who studies his Bible daily, has raised a godly family, serves in the local church in every capacity he can, and otherwise devotes himself to the Lord. All that the factional man sees is that he disagrees with him on this one issue, which he impatiently and dogmatically demands be resolved to his personal satisfaction. The efforts of elders, preachers, and other mature members to address the problem are ignored or belittled as “compromise.” With a bulldog mentality, the factional brother charges everyone with “sin” who does not embrace his agenda and his campaign against the brother with whom he differs. He will press that issue to the point that he runs off from the local congregation such God-fearing men. His pet opinion means more to him than his brother does, so he will sacrifice the fellowship of his brother to elevate his opinion.

6. The factional man acts morally superior. Because of his evaluation of his opinion as the test of all righteous ness, the factional man will look upon himself as morally superior to his brethren who disagree with his pet opinion. Regarding this attitude, Paul warned, “Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. And if any man think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know” (1 Cor. 8:1-2). If such a man knew anything about the Scriptures, he would not destroy his brother for whom Christ died by his opinions. Of course, this man can rationalize what this Scripture teaches by convincing himself that his opinion is “what the Scriptures teach,” not “opinion.”

7. The factional man exalts his opinions over righteousness, peace and joy (Rom. 14:17). Paul wrote, “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteous- ness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost” (Rom. 14:17). For the factional man, his opinion with reference to his pet theory, is worth destroying the peace and joy of the local church.

8. The factional man refuses to receive those whom God receives (3 John 9). John described the conduct of Di- otrephes saying, “I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church” (3 John 9-10). Factional men are long on emphasizing 2 John 9-11 but have virtually no understanding of the teaching of 3 John 9-10. Elsewhere Jesus said, “And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matt. 18:5-6). The offence under consideration in this text is the unwillingness to receive one of Christ’s little ones. In another text, this incident is reported:

And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them, Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me. And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part (Mark 9:36-40).

The sin that the disciples were guilty of was refusing to receive one of God’s children. The factional man commits this sin every time he draws a line of fellowship against one of God’s children that God has not drawn.

9. The factional man is legalistic in his approach to salvation. He believes salvation and fellowship with God and other brethren are conditioned upon perfect knowledge and obedience to a selective set of standards which he determines (selective because his own failures must be rationalized). The factional mindset makes one’s salvation conditional upon perfect understanding of and perfect obedience to everything in God’s word, ignoring the vital distinctions between matters of faith and of personal conscience, between absolute commands and relative areas of growth, between a process of rejection of truth and a process of growth and maturity, and similar truths. He may deny that he believes in perfectionism, but he surely cannot have an on-going fellowship with a sincerely mistaken brother who disagrees with him about his opinion on a particular point. Regardless of all other scriptural considerations, the mistaken brother is regarded as a false teacher who must be driven from the fellowship of the local church.

10. The factional man is self-righteous. Closely associated with the legalistic approach to salvation is his self-righteous attitude. Such a person cannot have fellow- ship with those who disagree with him about his opinion. He cannot invite such people into his home or participate in the various collective activities in the local church with one who disagrees with him about his opinion. Doing this would be tantamount to violating 2 John 9-11 in his mind. Therefore, he draws an ever-narrowing circle of people with whom he can legitimately have fellowship.

11. The factional man is inconsistent. Despite his best efforts to be consistent, the factional man cannot consistently apply his factional beliefs. Inevitably he will find a way to fellowship those involved in some mistaken beliefs but not to have fellowship with others who have other mistaken beliefs. Somehow he will rationalize in his mind the reason why he can fellowship those who are guilty of holding some wrong beliefs but cannot fellowship those who are mistaken about his pet opinion.

12. The factional man works to line people up with his view. He will work the phones or go out to lunch with various members of the church and express his concern about serious problems in the church of which he is a member. Soon he has contacted and influenced such a significant group in the local church that he has created a faction. His group is lined up against another group. He has created schism in the body of Christ that will probably lead to division.

Conclusion

A factional brother may not portray every one of these character traits and there may be other character traits that I have omitted. However, one cannot deny that, as a body of Christians, we have trouble with factionalism from time to time. We need to address the problem, in the pulpit, in Bible classes, and in journals such as this. If this series stirs others to study what the Scriptures say about the problem of factionalism and begin preaching about it, its purpose will have been served. Perhaps we can stop need- less and destructive factionalism from destroying another congregation.

A Word of Caution

Let me add an important word of caution. False teachers may quote some part of this series on factionalism out of context in an effort to find comfort for their liberal-minded departures from the truth, in a bid for peace at any price, or in an effort to counteract our past opposition to their error. In the first century, false teachers used the same tactics. Let this serve notice to those who may do so that we are as firm today in our affirmation of every truth and our denial of every false doctrine as we ever have been. We are as deter- mined now as ever before to “fight the good fight of faith,” to be “set for the defense of the gospel,” and to uproot error and bring “into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (1 Tim. 6:12; Phil. 1:17; 2 Cor. 10:5).

The point of this series is this: we are as set to defend the truth of the gospel against factionalism as much as against liberal-minded departures, or any other form of sin. “Preaching the kingdom of God” means preaching “all the counsel of God” so that we may receive “an inheritance among all them which are sanctified” (Acts 20:25-32).