BY whatever road we have travelled we have been led to the
same conclusion, that the chance of the Church's becoming what it
ought to be depends upon the churches getting together. We have
seen this in connection with our study of the local congregation.
We have seen it in connection with the administrative work of the
churches as carried on by their official boards. We have seen it
finally in connection with the relation between the churches and
the Associations. In each case the attempt to secure effective co-
operation meets obstacles which can only be overcome by the
united action of the denominations as a whole. This is the situa-
tion which the movement for unity in its inclusive form is designed
to meet.

This movement, as we have seen, encounters an unexpected dif-
ficulty. It is the difficulty of the lack of unity within the denomi-
nations themselves. Even if they wished to unite, they are not in
a position to do so effectively, for they have not yet devised the
agencies through which they can put the will to unity into practice.
This weakness in denominational organization appears both in
the nature of the governing bodies, and in that of the intermediate
divisions through which these bodies function.

There is great variety in the method by which the different
churches are governed. In some the affairs of the church are cared
for by a General Council or Convention, meeting only once in three
or four years; in others the supreme judicatory meets annually.
In some it consists of two houses, as of bishops and lay delegates.
In others it is a single assembly. In some it commands large
powers, and can act on its own initiative. In others these powers
are strictly limited by the necessity of reference to the congrega-
tions represented. In some this representation is immediate and

-249-