In the case of Liddell _v._ Beal, the Crown by its supremacy has decided that the ornaments here spoken of are confined to those articles the use of which is prescribed by the first Book of Edward VI. It will be seen on reference to that Book, that the articles so prescribed are The Altar--Vestments, copes, albe, surplices, tunicles, corporals, paten, chalice, and some other things. Altar Lights are not mentioned amongst them, and therefore cannot according to this decision be supported by this Rubric. But the advisers of the Crown in the above case, intimate their opinion, that there were other things lawfully in use, though not supported by express parliamentary authority, such as crosses, bells, organs, &c. And it would seem therefore, that it is upon this ground that Altar Lights are to be supported. In virtue of the supremacy transferred by parliament to the crown, all ecclesiastical powers before exercised by the Pope, have been claimed and exercised by the Sovereign. And on the accession of Edward VI., Injunctions were issued, and Commissioners appointed by the Crown, to visit and reform all Churches throughout England. Amongst the injunctions so issued, was one expressly directing two Lights to be kept upon the Altar. And by no subsequent authority, either of the Crown or Parliament, have these Lights been directed to be removed. In common with all other good church observances, they have at various times, been violently opposed. Queen Elizabeth, however, “that bright occidental star,” King James I. and the successive English Sovereigns, have uniformly continued them in the Royal Chapels--they were constantly in use in the chapels of Laud--Bishop Andrewes (a predecessor of the Bishop of Ely) and Lord Burleigh--and they are to be found still, on the Altars of, I believe, all the Cathedrals, and most of the Collegiate and greater Churches of the Land. There is indeed one peculiarity connected with the present use of them; the Church prescribes _Lights_, the present practice proscribes Lights, and sets up “dead lights,” (_un_lighted candles). Whether this proceeds from that slovenly and irreverent carelessness, which has crept into so many of our Church arrangements, or from that weak and miserable system of compromise, which never does and never ought to succeed, it is equally to be deprecated. If the Law orders Lights, to have candles and not to light them is to disobey the Law. It reminds me of the “guinea in the pocket with strict injunctions never to change it”--of the sage conclusion of the humorous poem, “When nose used the spectacles, eyes should be shut;” it becomes thus an idle vanity, and an inconsistent unlawful superstition.