Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949): A Biographical Sketch

By Ransom Lewis Webster

Omaha, Nebraska

Formative Years

On March 14, 1862 there was born in Heerenveen in the Netherlands one who was destined to become a devoted servant of the kingdom of God and a defender of historic Christianity, Geerhardus Vos. He was born into a sphere of intense Christian activity, for his father was a pastor in the Christian Reformed Church (De Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerk). This denomination had come into being in 1834, as the result of a break with the old state church (De Nederlandsch Hervormde Kerk), which dated back to Reformation times. The division was in protest against the prevailing rationalism and liberalism of the state church. In contrast, the new church held firmly to the position of the famous Synod of Dort (1619).

Both of Vos’ parents were committed to the historic Christian faith. They were born in Graafschap, Germany, and were descendants of French Huguenots, named Vosse, who had fled from France to Germany to escape severe persecution. Although we know nothing concerning the details of Vos’ childhood, we may justly assume that his parents faithfully instructed him in the tenets of Christianity and in the Confessions.

Vos’ early years served as a prelude to the remainder of his life. The period in which he grew up was filled with theological controversy. Liberalism view for the supremacy over orthodoxy, the same situation Vos was to encounter in his later life. It was during Vos’ youth that Abraham Kuyper led the battle against the forces of liberalism. In 1880 Dr. Kuyper founded the Free University of Amsterdam, an institution designed to provide education in the Christian tradition.

Besides a love for the faith, Vos was gifted with great scholarly ability. He attended the gymnasiums of Schiedam and Amsterdam, graduating from the latter with honors in 1881.

In the spring of that same year his father received and accepted a call to a Christian Reformed pastorate in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Thus the family, including Geerhardus, moved to America. He began his own studies for the ministry at the Theological School of the Holland Christian Reformed Church, Grand Rapids. He remained there for two years, until 1883. During the second year, he served as a student instructor. Vos continued his studies at Princeton Theological Seminary, where he won the Hebrew Fellowship for a thesis on “The Mosaic Origin of the Pentateuchal Codes.” After completing his work at Princeton in 1885, Vos spent three years of study in Europe, one at the University of Berlin and the others at the University of Strasbourg. In 1888, at the age of 26, he received the degree of Doctor of Philosophy from Strasbourg.

Understandably, Vos’ scholarly gifts began to attract attention. While still in Europe, he was offered the first professorship in Old Testament at the Free University of Amsterdam. He was unable to consider this position, however, because he had already accepted a call to teach at the Theological School of Grand Rapids. Thus, in the same year that he received his doctor’s degree, he returned to the United States and became Professor of Systematic and Exegetical Theology at the latter school, serving there for five years, until 1893. Because of his outstanding service to the cause of theological studies, Lafayette College conferred upon him the honorary degree of Doctor of Divinity in 1893.

After having received two separate invitations, Vos accepted the call to occupy the newly established Chair of Biblical Theology at Princeton Seminary, his alma mater. He assumed his duties in 1893, remaining at Princeton for the next 39 years. The title of his inaugural address was “The Idea of Biblical Theology as a Science and as a Theological Discipline.” At this time Princeton was at the height of its reputation, standing head and shoulders above sister Presbyterian institutions. Union of New York and McCormick of Chicago attempted to challenge her leadership. They could not, however, equal her eminent scholarship and solid orthodoxy. Princeton stood for the historic Calvinism of the Westminster Standards. In 1912, on the occasion of her centennial celebration, President Patton delivered an address, in which he reminded his hearers that “the theological position of Princeton Seminary is exactly the same today that it was a hundred years ago.”[1]

Vos was part of a distinguished faculty, composed of such men as B. B. Warfield, C. W. Hodge, Robert Dick Wilson, W. Brenton Greene. and O. T. Allis. Unfortunately, what is known of Vos during his Princeton years is all too scanty. Here, however, he developed and produced that for which he is especially known, the structure of a biblical theology of redemption.

One year after assuming his duties at the seminary, Vos was ordained to the Presbyterian ministry. During that same year (1894), he was married to Miss Catherine Francis Smith. Four children were eventually born to them, one daughter and three sons, Johannes, Bernardus, and Geerhardus, Jr.

Vos the Man

Geerhardus Vos became well known for his personal piety and for his devotion to the Bible as the Word of God. This devout nature found expression not only in the formal activities of his teaching and writing, but also in his family life. “Guests in the home were invariably guests at family prayers, as Mrs. Vos read the Scriptures with vivid running comments for the children, and Dr. Vos led in the prayer.”[2]

Commenting on Vos, Dr. Cornelius Van Til, a student of his for three years and a colleague for one, has said that he was the most “many-sided man” he has ever known. Vos enjoyed brief walks, was extremely well-read, and loved poetry and painting. He himself wrote a number of poems. He was quiet and reserved, able to hold his temper, even during some very disturbing faculty meetings at Princeton having to do with the intrusion of liberalism. Vos, Van Til recollects, possessed a “wonderful sense of humor.” On one occasion the pet dog of a certain student followed him into the classroom, at which Vos commented. “Please close the door; we must draw the line somewhere.” Van Til speaks also of Vos’ kindheartedness. When a student was unable to recite satisfactorily, Vos would frame his questions in such a way as virtually to provide the answers.[3]

Further insights concerning Vos have been given by Dr. J. Gresham Machen, also a student of his and later a fellow faculty member:

We had this morning one of the finest expository sermons I ever heard. It was preached by Dr. Vos, professor of Biblical Theology in the Seminary, and brother of the Hopkins Dr. Vos, and rather surprised me. He is usually rather too severely theological for Sunday morning. Today he was nothing less than inspiring. His subject was Christ’s appearance to Mary after the resurrection. Dr. Vos differs from some theological professors in having a better-developed bump of reverence.”[4]

Geerhardus Vos was a man of many facets, a person of immense breadth and depth. He was an intense and earnest individual, one whom many found difficult to appreciate. Yet those who did understand him found him to be a very warm and human person.

Vos the Defender of the Faith

Even before Vos had become part of the Presbyterian Church, liberalism was beginning to make itself felt there. This insidious movement increased in vigor over the years, eventually making deep inroads. Such incidents as the Fosdick case, the Van Dyke case, and the Auburn Affirmation served to bring Presbyterianism and Princeton Seminary into a crisis situation. Vos entered into the defense of the truth mainly through his writings, in articles and in such books as The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom and the Church and The Self-Disclosure of Jesus.[5]

The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom and the Church first appeared in 1903, published by the American Tract Society. It was reprinted by the William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company in 1951 and by the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company in 1972. The work was originally the second in a series of volumes issued on Jesus, under the editorship of Dr. John H. Kerr, for the purpose of presenting the views of our Lord’s life and teaching as held by conservative scholarship. Liberalism had been busy producing a number of interpretations of Jesus from its own point of view. This book, therefore, was indeed timely.

Of all Vos’ works, this is perhaps the most popularly written, being the least technical. It is, however, by no means elementary. To be specific, the book is an effort to define Jesus’ doctrine of the kingdom as to “its place in the larger field of revelation as well as in the field of Jesus’ teaching historically considered. The attempt is made throughout to reproduce our Lord’s own point of view and keep the discussion in close touch with this.”[6]

Vos contends that Jesus was the founder of no new religion; instead, he was to bring about the realization of what had previously been presented in ideal form. His point is that there is a historic unity between Jesus’ teaching and the revelation of the Old Testament regarding the Kingdom. The essence of the Kingdom of God consists in the supremacy of God, in the sphere of saving power and in the state of human blessedness. There could be, for Jesus, no state of happiness for man without the prior reigning of God. For Vos, the relationship of the Kingdom of God and the Church is summarized in these words: “The Church is a form which the kingdom assumes in result of the new stage upon which the Messiahship of Jesus enters with His death and resurrection.”[7]

It is at this point that Vos comes under criticism. For him the Church is not necessarily the only outward expression of the Kingdom. Whenever any sphere (e.g., science, art, the family) comes under the controlling influence of the divine glory, there the kingdom of God has become manifest. Such a view places one in the awkward position of setting the Church on the same level as the sphere of science, etc. In spite of this, however, Vos succeeded in producing a viable biblical alternative to liberalism’s view of the Kingdom of God.

A second book by Vos defending the faith, The Self-Disclosure of Jesus, was first published in 1926. J. Gresham Machen was partly instrumental in its original publication, using his influence to persuade the George H. Doran Company to produce the work. It was later rewritten and edited by Vos’ son, The Rev. Johannes Vos. The revision was published by Eerdmans in 1954. The book was composed against a background of the liberal attack on Orthodox Christianity, especially on the integrity of the person and work of Christ as traditionally conceived. The Tübingen school of theology, with which Machen clashed in his famous book The Origin of Paul’s Religion, had exerted great influence, with its Hegelian approach to the New Testament, and had led to a reevaluation of the place of Jesus in the redemptive scheme, especially with regard to his own self-estimate and disclosure. Twentieth-century liberal Protestant theology became, accordingly, deeply interested in christology. The historic conception of Christ was cast aside, and modern views arose which in general tended to view the Savior as human and fallible, one towards whom we are to have respect, but little more.

Vos reacted to these rationalistic attempts to explain away the divine nature and mission of Jesus. He argued that we can do nothing else than accept and receive him “at the face value of his central self-estimate.”[8] He states that “no one can take a Savior to his heart in that absolutely unqualified sense which constitutes the glory of religious trust, if there persists in the background of his mind the thought that this Savior failed to understand himself.”[9] Vos saw that the seeds of the destruction of Christianity are sown when there is forced upon Jesus a role other than that which he actually sustained.

Vos lists five views that attempt to deny to Christ a simple itiessianic consciousness: (1) the position of outright denial of such a self-consciousness, (2) the agnostic view, refusing to commit itself, (3) the theory of a prospective messiahship, (4) the hypothesis of a gradually developing consciousness, and (5) the view that the messiahship was a formal state, not actually touching on the essence of Jesus’ permanent significance as the center of Christianity. Vos deals at length with William Wrede’s The Messianic Secret. Wrede attempted to discredit Mark’s Gospel, which was held to be the earliest gosl)el document. In doing so, he discredited at the same time Matthew and Luke, who followed Mark’s basic outline. An absolute skepticism with respect to the entire Gospel tradition was the outcome of Wrede’s views.

In defending the Orthodox position, Vos’ method was to take the various titles given to Jesus, such as the Christ, the Lord, the Son of God, exegeting them in context and in relationship to the Old Testament. His conclusion was that Jesus, from the very outset, entertained a messianic interpretation of his coming death. He held, that is to say, that it contained saving significance. He set forth, indeed, a messianic interpretation of his entire ministry.

This book, though helpful in presenting a systematic exposition of Jesus as he saw himself, is very much dated. It is probably little read at the present time. Vos was speaking to a controversy belonging to the “twenties” of this century, a controversy evoked by outright (lenial of Jesus and his messiahship. Modern studies, however, bypass this type of argumentation. The “war” is now being waged on a different level. Neoorthodoxy perceived the religious vacuum created by negating everything of central significance to the faith. While yet continuing to deny historic Christianity, it is seeking now to be creatively positive.

Vos the Theologian

In addition to his apologetical labors Vos also made major contributions in the field of theological studies. One such contribution is his book The Pauline Eschatology. This work was first published in 1930 by the author himself, and printed at the Princeton University Press. It was republished in 1952 by Eerdmans. Though the title might lead one to expect a specialized treatment of “last things,” Vos intends something more. The work is a masterly interpretation of the Apostle Paul, who is seen as a theologian whose eschatology is his theology. As the author himself states: “to unfold the Apostle’s eschatology means to set forth his theology as a whole.”[10]

This book cannot be read superficially with any hope of gain, for Vos’ great scholarship has enabled him to condense vast stores of knowledge into every paragraph. He presents a work of sweeping comprehensiveness, fitting Pauline eschatology into the total biblical picture. Perhaps the secret of the strength of the volume lies in its unsurpassed exegesis. Such passages as 1 Corinthians 15:35–50 and 2 Corinthians 5:1–8 are treated carefully and made to produce a wealth of ideas.

It is Vos’ thesis that in Paul there is a weaving of the threads of eschatology and soteriology into a whole doctrinal fabric. Four structural lines are examined by which Vos tests his thesis: the idea of the resurrection, salvation itself, the doctrine of the judgment versus justification, and the conception of the Holy Spirit. He also examines the three principal terms employed by Paul regarding the second advent, “parousia,” “revelation,” and “the day” (with its variations). In his treatment of the approach of the last day Vos develops what amounts to a philosophy of the history of the Church, in which certain elements are seen as implying a gradual and fixed movement toward the goal of the advent: (1) that the time is short, so life should be lived accordingly; (2) that the receiving back of the unbelieving majority of the Jews must be accomplished; (3) that the subjugation of the enemies of Christ is being fulfilled; and (4) that a “falling away” will become more and more evident.

For Vos the bodily resurrection of believers “signifies in fact the most radical and all-inclusive transforming event within the entire range of the believer’s experience of salvation. It is equivalent to ‘becoming a new creation’….”[11] He also examines the four passages which deal with believers found living at the time of the Parousia, namely, 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17, 1 Corinthians 15:51–53, 2 Corinthians 5:1–5, and Philippians 3:20–21. Vos’ exegesis of these passages brings forth a wealth of helpful material.

Vos devotes a chapter to the question of the millennium, dealing first with the exegetical methods of the pre-millennialists, and then stating his objections to this view. In a moment of reflection Vos reveals his dismay over the attitude of millennialists towards his amillennialism: “It is not an uncommon experience at the present day for one who expresses dissent from Chiliasm to be met with the question, are you then, an unbeliever in ‘the second coming’.”[12] Perhaps the greatest difficulty with this work is its style. It is “slow going” for any reader. A summary chapter would have been helpful, in which Vos restated succinctly his position. Nevertheless, the work is extremely important and should remain a “standard” in its field for generations to come.

Vos’ greatest contribution to the world of biblical scholarship was his formulation and presentation of a comprehensive, orthodox, and distinctly Reformed biblical-theological approach to the Holy Scriptures. Up until his time, Reformed theology had devoted very little attention to a method of biblical understanding that focused on the history of special revelation.

In 1918, G. C. Aalders published a work on the prophets, De profeten des Ouden Verbonds (The Prophets of the Old Covenant). This was followed in 1932 by a book on divine revelation in Genesis, Chapters I-III, De Goddelijke Openbaring in de eerste drie hoofdstukken van Genesis (Divine Revelation in the First Three Chapters of Genesis) and in 1933 with a work on the restoration of Israel according to the prophets, Het herstel van Israël volgens het Oude Testament (The Restoration of Israel according to the Old Testament). In 1935, a brief survey, “The Old Testament History of Special Revelation,” was produced by the same author for a Bible handbook, but it comprised only 36 pages. Dr. J. Ridderbos published, in four volumes, from 1930–1941, an extensive work on Old Testament prophetic revelation entitled Het Godswoord der Profeten (The Revelation of God through the Prophets). Concerning the New Testament, Dr. F. W. Grosheide published in 1918 De eenheid der Nieuw-Testamentische Gods-openbaring (The Unity of the New Testament Divine Revelation) and in 1925 De geschiedenis der Nieuw-Testamentische Godsopenbaring (The History of New Testament Divine Revelation).[13]

One reason suggested for this neglect on the part of Reformed scholarship (and conservative scholarship in general) was that the “method as initially employed was bonded to rationalistic presuppositions which made it an inevitable and effective instrument for the denial of the divine origin and unity of Scripture.”[14] Biblical theology was developed in liberal circles, and held to an evolutionary view of biblical religion. Nevertheless, conservative scholarship recognized the necessity of pursuing this discipline, but within a framework giving due honor to the Bible as the revealed Word of God and not as the product of man’s religious nature. Vos, through his great work, Biblical Theology, Old and New Testaments, added a new chapter to the study of biblical theology from a conservative and from a Reformed perspective. At a time when other orthodox scholars held to a purely historical method for the presentation of biblical theology, Vos followed the heilsgeschichtliche method. Vos saw that God, the active agent, revealed Himself in biblical events and in the interpretation of those events. God’s redeeming acts in history constitute the core of revelation. Revelation is given as “an organically unfolding process.”[15]

Vos denied the concept that the Bible is merely a depository of abstract doctrinal statements, and also that historical development implied that former revelations had become obsolete with the giving of later ones. He held rather that all divinely wrought events form a complete series, and that all divinely given interpretations of those events form a whole. Consequently, the Old Testament is not meaningful apart from the New Testament, and the New Testament requires the Old Testament as its firmly established factual basis. In other words, Vos held to a unity of biblical revelation.

Vos viewed theology in the usual way, as being divided into four departanients: exegetical, historical, systematic, and practical. He saw exegetical theology as not being confined solely to exegesis, but as including, among other things, biblical theology. He defined biblical theology as “that branch of Exegetical Theology which deals with the process of the self-revelation of God deposited in the Bible.”[16] It is helpful to note at this point, that the arrangement of the material dealt with in biblical theology is not borrowed from systematic theology, but rather is grouped around the central events of redemptive history.

Even though Vos greatly preferred the name “history of special revelation” to that of biblical theology, he used the latter, giving as his reason that “it is difficult…to change a name which has the sanction of usage.”[17] Vos’ objections to the term “biblical theology,” were: (1) that since all theology, is supposed to be biblical, to preempt the predicate “biblical” for a single discipline would be presumptuous, (2) the word “biblical” seems to imply that a peculiar method is used, namely, that of reproducing the truth in its original biblical form with subsequent transformation, and this is not true, for biblical theology, in fact, does make the material undergo a transformation, and (3) the usage of “biblical” with its suffix ending “al,” makes it appear to be a fifth department of theology rather than a subdivision under the first of the usual four departments.[18]

In 1948 Vos’ book Biblical Theology, Old and New Testaments was published. As has previously been noted, Reformed theology had provided no complete history of special revelation. Study had certainy been done on the subject, but nothing approaching the comprehensiveness of this endeavor. Originally, the work was in the form of class notes prepared for his students. One of the author’s sons, the Rev. Johannes Vos, revised, annotated, and indexed the work for publication, having access to the private files of his father. In this work Geerhardus Vos is at his finest. Though the style is rather heavy, and often technical, the author’s grasp of the subject, plus the thoroughness and intricacy of his arguments render the book a stellar contribution to theological literature.

The work is divided into three parts: the Mosaic epoch of revelation, the prophetic epoch of revelation, and the biblical theology of the New Testament. Vos in the first part deals with general and special revelation, drawing the distinctions between each. He proceeds to consider both of these prior to and apart from sin, and then under the régime of sin. Special revelation in relationship to Adam, Noah, the Table of Nations, the Tower of Babel, the Patriarchs, and Moses comprises the remainder of the first section.

Vos next handles the prophetic epoch of revelation. His position is that to the prophets was given the task of keeping the kingdom of Israel as a true representative of the Kingdom of Jehovah. To the office of prophet can also be attached the principle of continuity of revelation, in the upholding of the past and the reaching out into the future.

In part three Vos explores the structure of New Testament revelation which centers in Christ himself. Vos considers the nativity of Jesus, John the Baptist, and finally the public ministry of the Savior. The work ends rather abruptly. We wish the author had added sections dealing with the Book of Acts, the Epistles, and Revelation. Nevertheless, this work represents a major step forward in conservative biblical studies.

Closing Years

Geerhardus Vos spent many happy and productive years at Princeton. But is time went by the attacks of liberalism came closer and closer to the seminary until it moved from without its walls to within. The situation for faithful conservatives in many ways became extremely difficult.

In 1929, despite the vigorous opposition of men such as J. Gresham Machen, Princeton Theological Seminary was reorganized so as to place the school under the control of liberalism. Conservative leadership elected to establish a new seminary, called Westminster Theological Seminary. Many of this new school’s faculty came from Princeton. A few who sympathized with them decided, however, to remain on the old faculty. Among these was Geerhardus Vos. About this Dr. Stonehouse writes: “These decisions [of Vos, Armstrong, and Hodge] are not fully explicable, though Machen had grieved for months over their apparent inevitability and had sympathized with the men in the peculiar predicament in which they were placed. It is also clear that these decisions were not made with enthusiasm; rather it appears that the spirit manifested was one of sorrowful resignation.”[19] Regardless of this situation, however, Vos’ convictions remained those of historic Calvinism.

In 1932, at the age of 70, Vos retired from Princeton and moved to California. Five years later Mrs. Vos died. Vos then moved to Grand Rapids, Michigan to live with his daughter, Mrs. William Radius, whose husband was professor of Latin at Calvin College. On August 13, 1949 Vos passed away and was buried beside his wife at Roaring Branch, Pennsylvania.

Geerhardus Vos was by all standards always the scholar and at the same time always the Christian gentleman. He was a champion of historic Christianity, which to him was the Reformed Faith. He never avoided a confrontation with those opposed, but, knowing where his gifts lay, he preferred to take his stand in the classroom and at the author’s desk. Vos held to the highest form of biblical inspiration and inerrancy. For him the Bible needed no reinterpretation; it simply needed to be taken as God gave it, in terms of its own face value, the simple revelation of a sovereign Creator-Redeemer.

It is a curious thing, but for all his labors and tangible contributions to the advancement and maintenance of the kingdom of God, Vos has been largely a forgotten man and his works have not received the continued attention they deserve. Part of the reason for this neglect, as previously mentioned, is because of Vos’ high scholarship. Enrollment in his courses at seminary often was sparse compared to those of other professors of a more “popular” type, because of the weightiness of his lectures. In addition, some of his writings are of such a caliber that they remain beyond the attention span and ability of the average layman. His was a patient, methodical style of scholarship, more and more out of step with today’s impatient spirit and shallowness. Part of the reason for this neglect, also alluded to earlier, is that some of Vos’ work is dated and needs revising so as to make it relevant to today’s theological context. Notwithstanding the above comments, Vos remains a standard and dependable source of reference, one who is still quoted frequently.[20] Furthermore, his numerous monographs provide for us a wide range of sound theological literature.

It is significant to observe regarding the neglect of Vos, that at his funeral there was no official represenation from Princeton Theological Seminary, where Vos had faithfully labored for so many years![21] Happily, however, there is a resurgence of interest in Vos at Westminster Theological Seminary. Let us hope that this interest will gain momentum.

One of the continuing glories of the Reformed faith has been that many of its staunchest expositors and defenders have been among the most spiritually and intellectually gifted men with which God has graced the Church of Christ, Geerhardus Vos was one of these. May the Church never forget this man of God!

Notes

1. Ned B. Stonehouse, J. Gresham Machen (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955), p. 61.
2. The Princeton Seminary Bulletin, Vol. XLIII, no. 3 (Winter, 1950), 45.
3. The material in this entire paragraph was contributed by Dr. Van Til, during a private interview the author had with him in 1973.
4. Stonehouse, op. cit., p. 72.
5. A complete bibliography of Vos’ writings can be found in the Westminster Theological Journal, XXXVIII (1975–1976), 350–367.
6. Geerhardus Vos, review of Geerhardus Vos, The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom and the Church; The Princeton Theological Review II (1904), 335f.
7. Geerhardus Vos, The Kingdom of God and the Church (Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1972), pp. 85-86.
8. Geerhardus Vos, The Self-Disclosure of Jesus (New York: George H. Doran Co., 1926), p. 14.
9. Ibid.
10. Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (Princeton, N.J.: published by the author, 1930), p. 11.
11. Op. cit., p. 150.
12. Op. cit., p. 227.
13. G. C. Aalders, “History of Special Revelation,” Free University Quarterly, November, 1950, Vol. I, No. 1, pp. 80-81.
14. Richard Birch Gaffin, Jr., Resurrection and Redemption (A Study in Pauline Soteriology) (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Westininster Theological Seminary, 1969), p. 3.
15. Gaffin, op. cit., p. 3.
16. Gerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954), p. 13.
17. Op. cit., p. 23.
18. Ibid.
19. Stonehouse, op. cit., p. 450.
20. For example, George Eldon Ladd quotes extensively from Vos in his A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1974) as does Herman Ridderbos in Paul (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1975).
21. This comment comes from Dr. Van Til, who preached Vos’ funeral sermon. Van Til also recalls that no Christian Reformed clergymen were in attendance, even though he had rendered great service to that denomination.