In the Preface to the third edition of Mr. Mansel’s Lectures, p. 14, he says:—
“It has been objected by reviewers of very opposite schools, that to deny to man a knowledge of the Infinite is to make Revelation itself impossible, and to leave no room for evidences on which Reason can be legitimately employed. The objection would be pertinent if I had ever maintained that Revelation is or can be a direct manifestation of the Infinite Nature of God. But I have constantly asserted the very reverse.”
It is not the object of the Sermons contained in this volume to convict Mr. Mansel of any inconsistency on the subject of Revelation. I have understood him to maintain, just as he states, the “very reverse” of the doctrine that Revelation means a direct manifestation of the Nature of God. My wish is to ascertain whether that doctrine which I have been used to hold and proclaim, or ‘the reverse’ of it, is the true one. If Mr. Mansel had persuaded me that all I had believed up to this time on that subject was false, I hope I should have had the honesty to tell my congregation so, to ask pardon of God and of them for having deceived them, and to abandon my clerical functions. As he did not persuade me, as all that he has written has added immense force to my previous conviction,—I have explained in six Sermons (the first in the series was preached before the Bampton Lectures were preached) why, in spite of the high authorities on the other side, I must still assert the principle which I discover in the Services of the Church and throughout the Bible.
In sermons addressed to a London congregation, I could only refer to Lectures delivered in Oxford. Pulpit quotations are nearly always unfair; pulpit discussions on metaphysical topics must be nearly always most satisfactory to those who do not understand them. But if I made allusions to any book, I was bound to justify them. If I avoided quotations and discussions in a place for which they were unsuitable, it behoved me to prove that I did not avoid them because I was afraid of them. The ordinary resource in such cases is a collection of notes. Supposing I had wished to illustrate my own statements, to write a comment on my comments, I should have availed myself of that expedient. But I desired to bring Mr. Mansel’s book before my readers, to examine that thoroughly. I did not care to choose the weaker or more startling passages of it: unless it was studied as a whole, my purpose would not be answered. My ‘Letters to a Student of Theology preparing for Orders’ cannot be accused, I think, of treating the subject or the author carelessly or superficially. I have followed his statements and arguments step by step. If they are as decisive and satisfactory as they are said to be, my objections will only make their worth and their power more evident.
I have at least endeavoured to bring the maxims of the Lecturer to a crucial test. They are defences of the truths which my correspondent is to preach. The defence being admitted, what will he have to preach? They are derived from a “Regulative Revelation;” I ask to know what are the rules, and what is revealed. I hear that Germans are utterly silenced. I am anxious to be shown what remains for Englishmen. I could not hope that learned doctors would listen if these questions were proposed to them. I have some confidence in proposing them to young men who are entering upon the battle of life; I have known something of their perplexities; I am sure that some out of their number demand that the problems should be solved, having found that to stifle them is death.
I have not been able to avoid in these Letters a certain vehemence of expression, which if it has ever taken a personal form, I shall deeply regret. I have no excuse for entertaining towards Mr. Mansel any feelings but those of respect. He has treated me both on former occasions and in this volume with a courtesy to which I have no claim; he has even intimated a hope that we are essentially agreed in opinion. No one can tell how eagerly I should have responded to that hope, or how grateful I should have felt to so able a man for having entertained it. But since the further I read in his book, the more I perceived that it would be needful for me to abandon every conviction that was most precious to me before I could obtain that result, I felt myself obliged by his very good-nature to state the reasons of my disagreement. I could not state them as if they were indifferent to me; I could not conceal my opinion that the existence of English faith and English morality is involved in them. I have the comfort of reflecting that my words can do no possible harm to Mr. Mansel. His popularity cannot be diminished by my opposition. Some may be willing to accept it as an additional proof that his blows have been effectual,—as a pledge that more illustrious opponents may recoil from them. If I succeed in inducing a few Christian students and Christian workers to ask themselves what is Revelation; if I can convince a few serious doubters that what we call a Revelation of God, craves to be tried by the severest tests, is capable of meeting those agonies of the human spirit which our arguments can never meet;—I have done what I meant to do.
I had finished my Letters before I read Canon Stanley’s admirable sermon ‘On the Wisdom of Christ,’ which was preached before the University of Oxford last November. Some passages in that sermon, especially those on the criticism of the Bible and on the ‘All or Nothing’ doctrine, anticipate what I have tried to say in my remarks on Mr. Mansel’s last Lecture. The whole discourse proves, it seems to me, that the true spirit of Butler has not departed from Oxford.
5, Russell Square, June 4.