Who Was Friedrich Adolph Lampe? and Why Translate His "Synopsis" of Church History?

Friedrich Adolph Lampe was born in 1683, in Detmold, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany.  His father, Hendrik Lampe, was Pastor of a French and German Reformed congregation there; his mother, Elisabeth Christina, was the daughter of Jakob Zeller, the General Superintendent of the German Reformed Church of Lippe (with its administrative seat in Detmold).  Friedrich was born during the period of High Orthodoxy, and would be reared and educated as the older Orthodoxy began to be eaten up by Cartesian Rationalism.

Lampe spent the years from 1698 to 1702 at the Academic Gymnasium at Bremen.  This period was crucial in his development, as he came under the formative influence of Cornelius de Hase[1] and Theodor Undereyck.[2]  Under Hase and Undereyck, Lampe embraced a modified form of Cocceian federalism (not unlike that of Witsius[3] and Brackel[4]):  more specifically, Lampe sees less difference, and more continuity, between the Old Testament and the New than Cocceius; and he adopts Voetian experimental and experiential emphases (characteristic of the Nadere Reformatie) in his treatment of Covenant Theology (sometimes with an unexpected hint of mysticism).  These two features, his modified Cocceian federalism and Nadere Reformatie piety, will characterize his scholarship and ministry throughout his life and career.

After completing his studies at Bremen in 1702, Lampe matriculated at the Dutch University of Franeker (Friesland, Netherlands).  There he had the happy opportunity to study under the great Campegius Vitringa, the Dutch Colossus of Hebraic and Rabbinic scholarship.[5]  Vitringa’s modified Cocceian federalism was very much in line with that Hase and Undereyck.  Perhaps somewhat unhappily, Lampe also came under the influence of Hermann Alexander Roell.[6]  As a Cartesian, Roell endeavored to bring all Christian doctrine to the bar of Reason.  The intrusion of Rationalism into Christian Theology has frequently led to aberrations in Trinitarian dogma; and that is certainly the case with Roell.  He argued that the “Generation” of the Son is only an improper expression of a certain ineffable mode of the eternal and natural coexistence of the Son with the Father, made manifest through the Son’s economic execution of the Mediatorial office.  Orthodox theologians complained that thus defined, “Generation” would apply equally to the Father and the Spirit, since the three are eternally coexistent, leading to a confounding of the three Persons, which is absurd:  neither are the terms “Generation” and “Coexistence” equivalent; the coexistence of two men does not in any way imply a generation of one by the other.  Roell asserts only the eternal coexistence of the Father and the Son, and the language of “Generation” is understood to have its origin in the Son’s taking of a human nature and the Mediatorial office (the Socinian view).  Although Lampe does not follow this view fully, nevertheless Roell had an impact on Lampe’s formulation of these matters, and embroiled him in controversy.

After the completion of his education, Lampe entered the ministry.  In 1703, he accepted the call to serve as Pastor of Weeze, near the Duchy of Cleves, in western Germany.  In 1706, he was transferred to Duisburg; during this pastorate Lampe’s commitment to Nadere Reformatie piety was challenged by the Labadists, but ultimately he rejected their idiosyncrasies (ecclesiastical separatism, communitarianism, mysticism, etc.).  His final pastoral stop was at Bremen (1709), where he began the composition of his Geheimniß des Gnadenbunds (Secrets of the Covenant of Grace, 1712-1740), a massive system of doctrine of more than four thousand pages, published in six volumes.  His interest in catechism also makes its appearance in the publication of his Milch der Wahrheit nach Anleitung des Heidelberger Katechismus (1718), the first of several catechetical works.

In 1720, Lampe accepted an appointment as Professor of Theology at Utrecht, leaving the German Reformed context for the Netherlands.  While at Utrecht, Lampe received his Doctoral degree (1720), and composed his massive three volume Commentarium analytico-exegeticum evangelii secundum Joannem (1724-1726).  Although highly regarded for its depth of scholarship, the irregular formulations of the Generation of the Son (John 5:26) and of the Procession of the Spirit (John 15:26) troubled Lampe’s tenure at Utrecht.

And so the new employment and environment did not prove altogether congenial to Lampe.  Jacobus Fruytier, a staunch Voetian and anti-Cartesian,[7] charged Lampe with the errors of Roell, opening up a controversy that would dog Lampe for the rest of his life.  Like Roell, Lampe worries over the representation of the distinction among the Persons of the Trinity as “Modal”, thinking that the terminology tends toward Sabellianism, preferring instead simply to characterize the distinction as “Personal”, grounded in the proper intellect and will of each Divine Person, while acknowledging the unity of the Divine Essence.  The Orthodox complained that this manner of expression is less determinative, applying with equal aptness to Angels and Men.  Also, like Roell, Lampe denies that the “Generation” of the Son implies the communication of the Divine Essence from the Father to the Son; in his view, such a communication of the Divine Essence would tend toward Arianism and Tritheism.  Lampe, for his part, refuses to define “Generation”, taking the relevant passages of Scripture as economic and Mediatorial, while at the same time affirming that the “Generation” of Son is natural, pertaining to the Divine Essence, Eternal, and Necessary.  It is the latter assertion, although difficult to reconcile with the former, that saves Lampe from the charge of heresy, with the Orthodox for the most part complaining only about his manner of expression.  Lampe’s treatment of the Procession of the Holy Spirit suffers from like weaknesses.

In 1726, while still at Utrecht, Lampe expanded into the field of Church History with the publication of his Synopsis historiæ sacræ et ecclesiasticæ ab origine mundi ad præsentia tempora, secundum seriem periodorum deductæ, providing a summary of Biblical history (Old and New Testament), and of subsequent Church History to Lampe’s own day.  The next year, harried by controversy and with failing health, Lampe returned to Germany, accepting an appointment as Professor of Theology at Bremen.  There he continued his work in Church History, publishing his massive Historiam ecclesiæ reformatæ in Hungaria et Transylvania, a considerable contribution to the field.  He also composed a manual of Christian practice, Delineationem Theologiæ activæ, continuing to demonstrate his lively interest in the practice of piety.

In 1729, just three years after his return to Germany, Lampe died.  As one of the late proponents of the distinctive tenets of the Nadere Reformatie, he left behind a significant legacy of influence on the rising generation of churchmen and scholars.  And, Lampe, although “being dead, yet speaketh”.

___________

So the question may be asked, why undertake a translation of Lampe’s Synopsis of Sacred and Ecclesiastical History?  Three reasons.

First, during the period of Protestant Scholasticism, generations of the greatest theological minds in history applied themselves to educational method.  The goal was to provide a broad and deep theological education with the utmost efficiency.  When one considers the theological luminaries that were produced by this method of education, and their theological attainments at relatively young ages, the goal was largely achieved.  In succeeding generations, the educational methods of Protestant Scholasticism were set by, and then largely forgotten, much to the hurt of theological education in the present day.  The translation of Lampe’s Synopsis of Sacred and Ecclesiastical History is part of an effort to recover the powerful educational methods of Protestant Scholasticism.

Second, it provides a brief survey and summary of Church History by one of Reformed Orthodoxy’s great educators.  Consequently, Lampe’s Synopsis is a fine and efficient introduction to Biblical and Post-Biblical Church History from a Reformed perspective.

Third, it was written toward the end of the period of Reformed Orthodoxy.  Consequently, it provides some perspective on both the Reformation and Post-Reformation developments.

[1] Cornelius de Hase (1653-1710) was a Dutch Reformed theologian.  He studied at the University of Heidelberg in 1668, and then at the Collegium Mauritianum in Kassel, where he came under the influence of Theodor Undereyck, a Cocceian committed to the principles of the Nadere Reformatie.  In 1676, Hase was appointed as pastor at St. Martin’s in Bremen, where he served with Undereyck, and then as a teacher in the Academic Gymnasium at Bremen.

[2] Theodor Undereyck (1635-1693) was a German Reformed pastor and theologian.  He was heavily influenced by the federal theology of Cocceius, and by the practical piety of the Nadere Reformatie.  In 1670, Undereyck was appoint pastor of St. Martin’s Church in Bremen.

[3] Hermann Witsius (1636-1708) was a Dutch Reformed Theologian of the Voetian school.  He served as Professor of Theology at Franeker (1675-1680), Utrecht (1680-1698), and Leiden (1698-1708).  Witsius’ federal theology was heavily influential in the Netherlands, Germany, and Scotland.

[4] Wilhelmus à Brakel (1635-1711) was a Dutch Reformed Theologian and Pastor.  He is famous for his Logikē latreia, dat is, Redelyke Godtsdienst (The Christian’s Reasonable Service), a four-volume system of practical theology, preserving and propagating the very best of the experiential piety of the Nadere Reformatie.

[5] Campegius Vitringa Sr. (1659-1722) was a Dutch Reformed theologian and Hebraist.  He was a critical Cocceian, and heavily influenced by his pastor, Herman Witsius.  He served the university at Franeker, first as professor of Oriental languages (1681), then of Theology (1682) and Church History (1697).  He is remembered for his work in Jewish antiquities, and for his commentaries on Isaiah and Revelation.

[6] Hermann Alexander Roell (1653-1718) was a Dutch Reformed philosopher (Cartesian) and theologian.  He served as Professor of Philosophy and Theology at Franeker (1685-1704), and as Professor of Natural Theology at Utrecht (1704-1718).

[7] Jacobus Fruytier (1659-1731) was a Dutch Reformed pastor and theologian.