there was a pantheon at rome, which was a monument of the religious tolerance of the empire. it was dedicated, as appears from the inscription on the portico, by agrippa, son-in-law to the great augustus, to jupiter and all the other gods, with the same generosity that prompted the athenians to erect an altar to the gods that might be unknown. a niche was afforded within its walls to every deity of the provinces whose devotees were willing to accept the hospitality; and christ himself might have figured with the rest, if his worshippers did not scorn all other gods but their own.
the old pantheon still exists, and bears the name of the rotunda. but it is no longer a pagan temple. it was re-dedicated by pope boniface the fourth, in a.d. 608, to the virgin mary and all the saints. another pope, a thousand years later, despoiled it of its ornaments, which had been spared by so many barbarian conquerors. he cast some into cannon, and with the rest formed a high altar for the church of st. peter.
these alterations were of course justifiable. they were all made in the interest of christianity. what could be more proper than the transformation of pagan temples into christian churches? what more admirable than devoting to the worship of christ the edifice which had echoed to the tread of the priests of jupiter? what more pious than singing the praises of mary and all the saints in a temple where idolaters had celebrated the glories of all the gods and goddesses of olympus?
such is christian logic. but if the temples of one faith may be so transformed, why may not those of another? if christianity had the right to devote the temples of paganism to its own uses, why has not modern civilisation the right to devote the temples of christianity to secular purposes?
the church thinks otherwise. it is at present denouncing the secularisation of the church of st. geneviève, in order that victor hugo, who died a freethinker and was buried without religious rites, might repose in an unconsecrated place. this building is the french pantheon. it was secularised during the revolution, and dedicated by the republic, not to the gods of religion, but to the heroes of liberty. when the monarchy was restored it was re-consecrated, and purged of the luciferous taint of voltaire's dust. but now the republic is once more established on the ruins of monarchy and imperialism, it again secularises the church of st. geneviève as a tomb for its mighty dead. the church is naturally indignant, but its anathemas are powerless. god does not interpose, and the republic is too strong. nay, there is even a rumor that the roman pantheon may be secularised also, and changed into a national mausoleum, where the youth of italy may bend reverently before the tombs of such glorious soldiers of progress as mazzini and garibaldi, instead of honoring the very counterfeit presentment of fabulous old saints, chiefly renowned for their laziness and dirt.
the church of st. geneviève is desecrated, cries the archbishop of paris, and special prayers are offered up to that ancient lady in heaven to avert her wrath from the infidel city which has so insulted her. in one sense the archbishop is right. the church is desecrated in the strict etymological meaning of the word. it has been converted from sacred to secular uses. but in the secondary meaning of the word the building is not desecrated, but honored, by being made a fit receptacle for the mortal remains of victor hugo.
a government decree and the removal of the cross on top of the church were the only steps necessary to its desecration. the consecrated character of the temple is gone. to the carnal eye the structure remains unchanged, within and without, except for the loss of a crucifix; but it is quite possible that a priestly nose would be able to scent the absence of the spirit. the holy ghost has fled, angels no more haunt the nave and aisles, and st. geneviève hides her poor head in grief and humiliation. no doubt; yet we dare say the building will stand none the less firmly, and if it should ever be pulled down, its materials would fetch as much in the market as if they were saturated with divinity.
consecration is, after all, nothing but a priestly trick. what sensible man believes that the holy ghost, if such a being exist, is at the beck and call of every catholic or protestant bishop? can the "universal spirit" dwell exclusively in certain places? can the third person of the trinity have sunk into such an abject state as to dodge in and out of buildings, according as he is wanted or not? is there any difference that the nose, or any other sensitive organ, can detect between a consecrated church and an unconsecrated chapel? can the geologist or the chemist discern any difference between the consecrated and the unconsecrated division in a cemetery? is the earth affected by priestly mutterings? do the corpses lie any more peacefully, or decompose any more slowly, for the words pronounced over the mould that covers them? or is there any appreciable virtue in the consecrated water, with which the protestant and catholic are alike baptised, and with which the latter sprinkles himself periodically as a preservative against evil? season finds no difference; it is perceived only by faith, which may be defined as the faculty which enables a man to see what does not exist.
