506 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[2°* S. IX. June 30. '60. 



the Appendix of this Psalter, the Te Deum is 

 found, bearing this title — " Hymnus quem S tus - 

 Ambrosius et S. Augustinus inviceni condide- 

 runt." But there is no great authority in all this ,- 

 first, on account of the late date 772 ; secondly, 

 " invicem condiderunt " does not necessarily mean 

 that it was jointly extemporised in the church ; 

 but rather that it was jointly prepared and com- 

 posed in the cabinet. The probable origin of the 

 tradition was the sermon attributed to St. Am- 

 brose, numbered 92. in the Paris edition of 1549, 

 and entitled " De Augustini baptismo." This 

 sermon, from internal evidence, from total dis- 

 similarity of style and sentiment, from the in- 

 credible assertion put into the mouth of St. Am- 

 brose, that he often prayed to God to be delivered 

 from the captious sophistry of Augustin, whereas 

 it was by hearing St. Ambrose preach that St. 

 Augustin was converted to the Catholic faith, as 

 he tells us in his Confessions, lib. v. c. 13. and 

 lib. vi. c. 1., — from these and similar indications 

 of spurious origin, has been pronounced by all 

 competent critics decidedly supposititious. The 

 Benedictine Fathers have, in consequence, alto- 

 gether omitted it from their edition of the works 

 of St. Ambrose. And Cave stigmatises it as un- 

 doubtedly spurious, with this strong expression, 

 " Sermo ultimus (92.) de baptismo Augustini, in- 

 epti cujusdam nugivenduli est." (Historia Lite- 

 raria, ad an. 374.) Landulphus, however, refers 

 to the assertions of the said sermon with approba- 

 tion (lib. i. cap. 19.), and therefore partly founded 

 his narrative upon them. 



Who, then, is to be considered the author of the 

 hymn ? It is a very difficult matter to decide. The 

 prevailing opinion inclines to St. Ambrose, who was 

 undoubtedly the author of many hymns adopted in 

 the liturgy. But it is to be remarked that all those 

 hymns are metrical, which the Te Deum is not. 

 And there exist various ancient MSS. which as- 

 cribe it to different persons. There is one at 

 Rome, in which it is entitled " Hymnus S. 

 Abundii." Another, according to Natalis Alex- 

 ander, is an ancient Benedictine breviary at 

 Monte Cassino, which attributes it to the monk 

 Sisebutus — " Hymnus Sisebuti monachi." Another 

 Codex in the Vatican gives it to the same monk, 

 according to Cardinal Bona. Archbishop Usher 

 mentions a Psalter which niakes Nicetas the 

 author. In the Benedictine edition of the works 

 of St. Hilary of Poitiers (a. d. 1693) a fragment 

 of a letter of Abbo, Abbot of Fleury (tenth 

 century), is quoted in the Preface, in which St. 

 Hilary is mentioned as its composer, — " In Dei 

 palinodia, quam composuit Hilarius Pictaviensis 

 Episcopus, &c." Others there are who ascribe it 

 to St. Hilary of Aries or some monk of Lerins. 

 It must have been, when composed, adapted, they 

 say, to the early morning office in choir ; as is 

 implied by the versicle " Dignare, Domiue, die 

 isto, sine peccato nos custodire." 



I have written at such length on this part of 

 the question, that I must try to be brief on the 

 remainder. I entirely dissent from the criticism 

 on the words " Te Deum laudamus," that the 

 necessary meaning is, " We praise Thee as God. 

 Of course, " O God" is not accurate. But the 

 strict rendering would be, " We praise Thee being 

 God — ovtix 06ov, — or " we praise Thee the God." 

 The same construction follows in " Te Dominum 

 confitemur ; Te iEternuni Patrem, &c," and this 

 is translated in the Common Prayer — " The Lord, 

 the Father everlasting." Each verb has a double 

 accusative, and that is all. 



The idea which A. H. W. has suggested, that 

 possibly the " Carmen " which the Christians sang 

 to Christ as God, as mentioned by Pliny in his 

 letter to Trajan, was this very hymn, is quite 

 untenable. In the first place, the common people 

 in Bithynia did not use the Latin language : now 

 the original of the " Te Deum " is undoubtedly 

 Latin. Second. If the hymn were entirely de- 

 voted to the profession of belief in the Divinity of 

 our Lord, it could not have been sung about the 

 close of the first century, when Pliny wrote ; they 

 could not with truth have sung — " Te seternum 

 Patrem onmis terra veneratur " — " Te per orbem 

 terrarum sancta confitetur ecclesia." Third. The 

 " Te Deum " is not a " carmen." 



A. H. W. asserts that " the versicles in the even 

 places answer those in the odd places, as far as the 

 interpolated ones, after which .those in the odd 

 places answer those in the even." I have already 

 mentioned that the division into versicles is a 

 modern arrangement; and have already shown that 

 the responsiveness is imaginary. But a singular 

 oversight is here committed, fatal to the argument. 

 For the versicle " Holy, Holy, Holy : Lord God 

 of Sabaoth" is in the odd place, and it answers the 

 preceding versicle in the even — " To Thee Cheru- 

 bin and Seraphin : continually do cry," and this 

 in a manner more closely connecting it, than in 

 any other passage, being separated as to punc- 

 tuation by a mere comma (Anglican translation), 

 the only instance in the entire hymn. 



The title " Father everlasting" is certainly given 

 to Christ ; but, unless the context indicate that 

 application of the title — and that is the question 

 — it generally would refer to the first Person of 

 the B. Trinity. In like "manner, the thrice re- 

 peated " Holy " is generally referred to the Three 

 Divine Persons. As to A. H. W.'s last suggestion 

 about the words aternum Patrem, I answer that 

 the general rule of the Church in addressing God 

 has always been to address the Father ; as is quite 

 evident from the usual termination of the Collects 

 and other prayers — " Through our Lord Jesus 

 Christ Thy Son, &c." Of course the Son or the 

 Holy Ghost may be specially addressed as occa- 

 sion requires, or devotion suggests. 



In conclusion, I have to remark that the order 

 of this beautiful hymn is sufficiently patent, and 



