that season. It is evidently not of great importance that strict accuracy should be attained in fixing these dates. So long as Christians agree in regarding the close of the year as the season of our Saviour's birth, the recurrence of that season is as fitly adapted to revive the memory of that event, as if the date were historically certain. The Christian year begins with Advent, a season of four Sundays, which precede the great festival of Christ's nativity, or Christmas. The next occasion which comes round is the commencement of his ministry, as marked by the manifestation at his baptism and at the marriage feast. His crucifixion is fitly preceded by a season of meditation and retirement, which, in analogy with his fasting and temptation in the wilderness, extends to forty days, and is called Lent. The resurrection is celebrated under the name of Easter, and the giving of the Holy Spirit under that of Whitsunday. The method of observance indicated by the Prayerbook is by regular portions of Scripture, called Lessons, assigned to each occasion. That portion of the Gospels which records the event forms one of these Lessons, and some passage from the Old Testament, either prophetic of or in some way analogous to the event, forms the other. Anthems and psalms also, of an appropriate character, are set apart to be read or sung on those days; and very naturally the sermon will take its coloring from the associations of the day. This arrangement infuses method and order into our religious services, whether conducted with the aids of public worship, or by ourselves at home. Without some such system, the reading of the Bible is in danger of becoming unconnected and fortuitous, and comparatively unprofitable. Where good judgment is used in the selec tion, it will be so to some extent, and where good judg ment is wanting, how much worse! Our readers are now pretty well aware what the King's Chapel Prayer-book is.. It is the "Book of Common Prayer" of the Church of England and of the American Episcopal Church, modified and adapted to Congregational Unitarian worship. Its identity is not lost, we contend, by these modifications, nor the association weakened which connects our book with the forms used by the ancient Church, and by generations of wise 1850.] The Reformed Liturgy. 277 and good men in the Roman Catholic and English Churches ever since. We cannot expect that persons attached to those doctrines which are here omitted will approve of this book, but to those whose sentiments on those subjects agree with ours, we cordially recommend it. A large number of the Unitarian societies of England use the reformed Liturgy. We have no expectation, nor scarcely a wish, that any of our existing churches should adopt it. The same causes that have hitherto prevented its adoption by any other society in this city will probably still prevent it. The people of New England are unused to that mode of public worship, and its unaccustomedness would create a distaste, which would probably prevent the experiment from being successful, if it did not prevent its being made. But in our sister cities, New York, for instance, the case is different. There the people are accustomed to the use of the prayer-book in public worship, and habit would be on the side of a Liturgy, instead of against it. In that city, we think, a church which should use this amended prayerbook would find a large number of ready hearers and friends. We know of several individuals, and we doubt not there are many, who, while they cling to the prayerbook of their early associations with a fondness that forbids their exchanging it for the totally different method of extemporaneous service, would gladly be relieved of many objectionable matters connected with the Church Prayer-book as it is. To such, we are sure, the adoption of this "Book of Common Prayer, according to the Use of King's Chapel, Boston," would seem, as it did to our fathers, "an auspicious turning from the dominion of creeds and phrases of man's device, to the easy yoke and authority of simple Scripture." * Greenwood's History. T. B. ART. VIII. ARCHITECTS AND ARCHITECTURE.* To erect a structure that shall combine "commodity, firmness, and delight," as Vitruvius hath it, - to make it serviceable, and at the same time expressive of its purpose, is no easy task. Not impossible, we know, from the proofs that it has been done; not easy, we judge, from their rarity. This scarcity of fine buildings among us has been attributed to various causes. The public say it is owing to the want of architects who are capable of producing them; the architects say that it is owing to the want of a cultivated public taste to appreciate a good building when it is built. Who shall decide? To our minds the answer is this. The public, it is true, are not capable of appreciating a fine building. But how should they be, when they have never seen any, or at least so few as not to give them an opportunity of forming their taste. Therefore it is plain that the initiative lies with the members of the architectural profession. Let them render themselves able to produce fine buildings, and a public taste will soon grow up to appreciate them. The next inquiry which presents itself is, Are the architects now thus competent? And the answer, we ear, must too generally be in the negative. Our architects, with a few honorable exceptions, may be divided into two classes. The one class consists of men, originally carpenters or masons, who have risen above their fellows, and who, sharing in the love of distinction common to humanity, prefer the name of architect to that of builder, which properly belongs to them. Should they confine themselves to executing the designs of others, they would succeed very well; for the practical part of construction they generally understand. But of that which distinguishes architecture from building, and gives it a claim to rank as one of the fine arts, they have but a dim and uncertain idea. The second class of architects consists of those enter * 1. Hints on Public Architecture. By ROBERT DALE OWEN. Published by order of the Smithsonian Institute. 2. The Seven Lamps of Architecture. By JOHN RUSKIN. New York: G. P. Putnam. 1850.] Architectural Skill 279 prising young men, who, with a happy audacity, consider themselves competent to perform any thing they may undertake, without the disagreeable formality of previous study. This class we know is a large one, and there is nothing wonderful in some of its members finding their way into this profession as well as others, except that it is more profitable to make quack pills than quack designs. The public, wisely enough, of two evils choose the least, and employ the "practical" architect, who knows little, in preference to the "theoretical" one, who knows nothing. While American architects consist for the most part of these sorts of men, is it wonderful that American architecture should be in such a languishing state? In England, and on the Continent, architecture occupies its rightful position, as the chief and most important of the arts of design. The architect is prepared for the exercise of his profession by a long course of study, tested by strict examinations in mathematics, the physical sciences, and those generally relating to construction. The talents and energies of the student are called forth by the spirit of emulation produced by contests for medals and academic honors. Governments themselves contribute to the encouragement of successful merit, by bestowing thereon their patronage and protection, by conferring civil orders and decorations, and by endowing academies and professorships, which enable the man of science to devote his leisure to the cultivation and advancement of his art. Such a thorough education as this we know little of in this country. Nor do we conceive it necessary that our architects should go through a precisely similar course. Something less theoretical would be more in accordance with our American ways. What Rousseau says of love applies equally well to this:-"Il faut commencer par pratiquer ce qu'on veut apprendre." No matter how the thing is accomplished, provided the result is the same. The only class among us who pretend to this thorough education are our civil engineers, and to this cause alone is it owing that the finest specimens of architecture among us have been built by civil engineers. And so it will be until the architect shall educate himself properly, until he shall aspire to know all that the civil engineer deems necessary, and also that which makes architecture a fine art, that which relates to the proportions and decorations of his buildings. Even then he will not be a great architect, unless he has been gifted by God with the eye and feeling of an artist. And now a few words on the mutual relations between architects and their employers, the public. Let us suppose that an architect, not one of the quack sort, but a really competent man, receives an order from somebody to design a building. From his experience of what any building ought to be to fulfil certain requisites, he makes his plans, which we will suppose satisfy his employer. He next proceeds to design the exterior of his edifice. He first rudely blocks out his masses, and gives to the different parts of his intended building their just and proper proportions, without which it is vain to expect beauty. He comes next to the ornamental parts. He carefully studies his mouldings and other decorative appendages, giving them all a similarity of chronology and style, and not mixing up the architecture of different ages and nations. He is also obliged to vary them in size, shape, and projection, according to the different places they will occupy on the building,-far from or near to the eye; in a strong south light or in shadow, and so forth. Having thus carefully prepared his design, in which all the parts bear that harmonic relation to each other and to the whole which makes a work of art, he submits it to his employer. Now there is no propensity more deeply seated in the nature of man, and consequently none more difficult to restrain or more pleasant to exercise, than the judging or critical faculty. Nothing flatters our self-love more than to be able to offer our advice in regard to the work of another, to suggest some improvement, or condemn some fault. For this, we all know, is very easy to do, and it at once raises us to an equality with, or elevates us above, the original producer or artist. It is unreasonable to suppose that the patrons of architects should be exempted from the operation of this general law, and therefore the employer of our friend probably replies, after having examined his design :-"This is quite beautiful. The Italian style, I perceive. Ah, how classic! But then you must alter these square windows, and |