forming ‘quite a large library of the English poets.’ He was already a strong tory, as became a member of an old family of soldiers and clergymen. He wrote in the ‘School Magazine’ in 1832–3, and in 1838 published a volume of youthful verses, ‘The Demons of the Wind and other Poems.’ After his father's death in 1835 his mother left Cosgrove, and from 1838 to 1842 lived in London, where her two sons (the younger, Robert Stanley, being also at Merchant Taylors') lived in her house. In 1842 she returned to Cosgrove. In 1838 Mansel won the prize for English verse and a Hebrew medal given by Sir Moses Montefiore. In 1839 he won two of the four chief classical prizes, and on 11 June 1839 was matriculated as a scholar of St. John's College, Oxford. He was a model undergraduate, never missing the morning service at chapel, rising at six, and, until his health manifestly suffered, at four, and working hard at classics and mathematics, while at the same time he was sociable and popular. His private tutor for his last years was Archdeacon Hessey, who was much impressed by his thoroughness in attacking difficulties and his skill in humorous application of parallels to Aristotle, drawn from Shakespeare or ‘Pickwick.’ In the Easter term of 1843 he took a ‘double first.’ His vivâ voce examination is said to have been disappointing, because he insisted upon arguing against a false assumption involved in his examiner's first question.
He began to take pupils directly after his degree, and soon became one of the leading private tutors at Oxford. He was ordained deacon at Christmas 1844, and priest at Christmas 1845 by the Bishop of Oxford. He found time to study French, German, and Hebrew, the English divines, and early ecclesiastical history. He became also popular in the common-room, where his brilliant wit and memory, stored with anecdotes and literary knowledge, made him a leader of conversation. His strong tory and high church principles made him a typical Oxford don of the older type. He soon published (see below) some logical treatises, showing great command of the subject, and in 1850 published his witty ‘Phrontisterion,’ an imitation of Aristophanes—spontaneous and never malevolent—suggested by the commission appointed to examine into university organisation and studies.
In 1849 he stood unsuccessfully for the chair of logic against Professor Wall. In October 1854 he was elected as one of the members of convocation upon the hebdomadal council under the new regulations. On 16 Aug. 1855 he married Charlotte Augusta, third daughter of Daniel Taylor of Clapham Common. He gave up taking pupils, though he retained his tutorship at St. John's. He was afterwards(8 April 1864) elected ‘professor fellow’ of St. John's. He had been enabled to marry by his election to the readership in moral and metaphysical philosophy at Magdalen College. His inaugural lecture and another upon Kant were published in 1855 and 1856, and he wrote the article upon metaphysics for the ‘Encyclopædia Britannica’ (eighth edition) in 1857. He was in the same year appointed Bampton lecturer for 1858. Although far from easy to follow, his lectures were heard by large audiences. They made a great impression when published, and led to a sharp controversy. Mansel's theory was a development of that first stated by Sir William Hamilton in his article upon ‘The Philosophy of the Unconditioned.’ He aimed at proving that the ‘unconditioned’ is ‘incognisable and inconceivable,’ in order to meet the criticisms of deists upon the conceptions of divine morality embodied in some Jewish and Christian doctrines. His antagonists urged that the argument thus directed against ‘deism’ really told against all theism, or was virtually ‘agnostic.’ Mr. Herbert Spencer, in the ‘prospectus’ of his philosophical writings (issued March 1860), said that he was ‘carrying a step further the doctrine put into shape by Hamilton and Mansel.’ F. D. Maurice (whom Mansel had already criticised in 1854, in a pamphlet called ‘Man's Conception of Eternity’) attacked Mansel from this point of view in ‘What is Revelation?’ Mansel called this book ‘a tissue of misrepresentations without a parallel in recent literature,’ and replied in an ‘Examination.’ Maurice answered, and was again answered by Mansel. Professor Goldwin Smith in 1861 renewed the controversy from the same side in a postscript to his ‘Lecture on the Study of History,’ to which Mansel also replied in a ‘Letter to Professor Goldwin Smith.’ Whatever the legitimate conclusion from Mansel's arguments, he was undeniably sincere in repudiating the interpretation of his opponents. He argued that belief in God was reasonable, although our conceptions of the deity were inadequate; that our religious beliefs are ‘regulative,’ not ‘speculative,’ or founded rather upon the conscience than the understanding, and that a revelation was not only possible, but actual.
While carrying on this controversy Mansel was actively employed in other ways. In 1859 he edited (with Professor Veitch) Sir William Hamilton's lectures. He was select preacher from October 1860 to June 1862
