he best way of bringing to pass shortened services for week-day
use. Add to this the fact that the intrinsic weakness of the driblet
method of revision[9] had been made so abundantly plain that even
its former friends wisely refrained from all attempt to urge it,
and our summing up of probable motives becomes approximately
complete.

II. As to the measure of authority conferred on, and scope allowed
to the Committee of Twenty-one, it is possible to speak with more
definiteness.

A precisian might of course, were he so disposed, take up the ground
that the report of the Committee when made ought to be monosyllabic,
"Yes" or "No." The wording of the resolution admits of such a
construction beyond a doubt; the Joint Committee was requested to
consider and report whether, etc., etc. But no one who listened to
the debate on the resolution could have been left in uncertainty
as to the real _animus_ of the measure. The thing intended to be
authorized was an experimental review, with implied reference to a
limited revision at some time future, in case the fruits of the
review should commend themselves to the mind of the Church.

A distinction must be drawn between revision and review. Revision
implies review as an antecedent step, but review is by no means
necessarily followed by revision. The English book was reviewed and
revised in 1662; it was reviewed but not revised in 1689. Review is
tentative and advisory; revision is authoritative and final. In the
present instance not an atom of power to effect binding change has
been conveyed. No authority has been given to anybody to touch a
line or a letter of the Prayer Book save in the way of suggestion
and recommendation. Responsible action has been held wholly in
reserve.

Moreover, even the pathway of review was most scrupulously hedged.
Applying to the resolution the legal maxim, _expressio unius est
exclusio alterius_, one sees at a glance that doctrinal change is a
matter left wholly on one side. The two points to which the
Committee is instructed to bend all its studies are "liturgical
enrichment" and "increased flexibility of use." Whatsoever is
more than these is irrelevant. Accurate distinguishment between
such "enrichments" as have and such as have not a doctrinal bearing
is, no doubt, a delicate point, and must be set down among the
difficulties to be encountered. As such it will be considered
further on. For the present the fact to be noted is that the
authoriz