THE twelve hundred priests who met last week for the Oxford Convention have now returned to their homes, and probably many of them this week have been reviewing their very remarkable experience and questioning themselves concerning the possible effects of those three crowded days. . . There are differences in the Catholic party, and these were bound to appear. Indeed, it was desirable that they should. It is never any good pretending that there is more unity than really exists. Such unreality is always paid for later. Rude awakenings come, and some of them are coming now to the bishops who met at Lambeth last year. They were inclined, as we can all see now, though in the glamour of the moment it escaped attention, to slur over essential and fundamental differences. Differences can never be hidden by a formula, as the history of the Thirty-Nine Articles might teach us. Therefore we need not regret that differences showed themselves at the Convention. If they exist it is better to drag them to the light and discuss them. But the exhibition of differences was not accompanied by any bitterness. There was a careful avoidance of acrimonious language. Practically all the speakers who joined in the discussions were applauded, though in several cases very few members of the Convention could have agreed with what was said. All this is, we think, to the good; both that disagreements should be exhibited, and that controversy should be frank and friendly. Sooner or later we must face certain questions. There must be certain definite things for which we stand — where disagreement excludes from our ranks. If we are to use the word Catholic it must mean something — not what anyone chooses to make it mean.