{"id":823,"date":"2011-05-06T15:09:32","date_gmt":"2011-05-06T19:09:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/sth-history\/?page_id=823"},"modified":"2011-05-26T16:16:04","modified_gmt":"2011-05-26T20:16:04","slug":"hinckley-gilbert-mitchell-1876","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/sth-history\/graduates\/1868-1950\/hinckley-gilbert-mitchell-1876\/","title":{"rendered":"Hinckley Gilbert Mitchell (1876)"},"content":{"rendered":"

American educator and theologian whose \u201ctrial\u201d for heresy became a cause celebre <\/em>in the M. E. Church, was born on Feb. 22, 1846, in Lee, N.Y., to James and Sarah Gilbert (Thomas) Mitchell. His educational achievements were many: Falley Seminary, Fulton, New York, 1867; Wesleyan University, A.B., 1873, AM., 1876, and D.D., l901; Boston University School of Theology, S.T.B., 1876; Leipzig University, Ph.D., 1879; and Mt. Union College, D.D., 1888. He married Alice Stanford on June 29, 1880.<\/p>\n

Mitchell served as Director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem, 1901-02; member of Alpha Delta Phi fraternity; member of 20th Century Club; Secretary of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis (editor of its Journal<\/em>, 1882-88); member of the Harvard Biblical Club. He was the author of: Hebrew Lessons<\/em><\/a>, 1885; Amos\u2014Essay in Exegesis<\/em><\/a>, 1893; Theology of the Old Testament<\/em> (trans.), 1893; Isaiah I-XII<\/em>, 1897; The World Before Abraham<\/em><\/a>, 1901; Genesis<\/em>, 1909; Tales Told in Palestine <\/em>(with J. F. Hanauer), 1904; \u201cHaggai and Zechariah,\u201d International Commentary<\/em>, 1912; Ethics of the Old Testament<\/em><\/a>, 1912.<\/p>\n

He became pastor of the Methodist church in Bearytown (or Fayette) of the Central New York Conference in 1879. He then taught Latin and Hebrew at Wesleyan University, 1880-83; was professor of Hebrew and Old Testament exegesis, at Boston University School of Theology, 1883-1905; and after that was professor of Hebrew and Old Testament exegesis at Tufts College, 1910 until his death.<\/p>\n

The Mitchell Case<\/h5>\n

He championed, in his classes, the higher criticism as it was beginning to be called, especially in the study of the Old Testament. In 1895 he was charged with \u201cUnitarian\u201d tendencies on account of his denial of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. He became a theological storm center in the M. E. Church. A collection of articles edited by W. W. Shenk, entitled Shall Methodism Remain Wesleyan in Type, and Evangelical<\/em>?, presented many accusations directed toward Mitchell. The articles were addressed to the bishops, ministers, and members of the M. E. Church, to present \u201cthe departures of Professor H. G. Mitchell of Boston University School of Theology, as set forth by certain men who have been students in his classroom work.\u201d The contributors felt Mitchell ought not be permitted to remain in the seminary, for his rationalistic theology encouraged denial of authority of the Word of Cod, tended toward Unitarianism, and sought to revolutionize Methodist doctrine. Mitchell\u2019s idea of evolution, they said, denied that man ever had a fall, contended that man had inherent in himself the full power for his own development, and repudiated Cod\u2019s plan for Christ to die that men might live.<\/p>\n

The General Conference of the M. E. Church therefore passed a resolution in 1900 that required, as a condition for the recognition of any theological school of the M. E. Church, that its professors be confirmed by a majority vote of the bishops present and voting at any regular meeting of their Board. Another resolution in 1904 stated that when specific charges of misteaching in Methodist theological schools were made in writing by responsible parties, members or ministers of the M. E. Church, the bishops were to appoint a committee from themselves to investigate charges. Their subsequent report, if adopted by the Board of Bishops, was to be transmitted to the trustees of the theological school involved for proper action.<\/p>\n

Attempts were made to prevent Mitchell\u2019s confirmation in 1900, but failed. In 1905, when Mitchell was again up for re-election, he was attacked for \u201cmisteaching,\u201d based mainly on his book, The World Before Abraham<\/em><\/a>. The bishops\u2019 committee said the book contained statements about the historic character of the Book of Genesis that seemed unwarranted, objectionable, and tended to invalidate the authority of other portions of Scripture. Mitchell\u2019s view of the fall of man and his assertion that the deluge was local were declared to invalidate Jesus\u2019 reference to Noah, and Paul\u2019s reference to the death of all in Adam. This, they felt, destroyed the authority of Jesus and the inspired writers of the New Testament. Thus, in 1905, charges of heresy were formally brought to the bishops, who voted not to confirm Mitchell\u2019s re-election to Boston. They sent their reasons and decision to the trustees, saying they had examined the charges made by responsible parties, and that the trustees should take responsible action.<\/p>\n

Six months later the trustees asked the bishops to reconsider their refusal to confirm. The bishops refused, saying the trustees had not taken, or made known, any \u201cproper action.\u201d \u201cThere had been no explanation from Professor Mitchell, much less modification or withdrawal of the statements objected to by the bishops and which created a \u2018reasonable doubt.\u2019 There went from the trustees, so far as the bishops knew, no request to Professor Mitchell even to consider whether the parts of his book referred to by the bishops ought to be reconsidered, revised or withdrawn.\u201d (The Independent<\/em>, Nov. 16, 1905, p. 1179.)<\/p>\n

In self defense, Mitchell requested that he be tried by the Central New York Conference of the M. E. Church, of which he was a member. The Conference appointed a committee to investigate the case, and after hearing the committee\u2019s report, refused to institute a formal trial. The Conference did, however, pass a resolution of censure for teachings which were contrary to the Holy Scriptures and to the doctrinal standards of Methodism. A trial was refused, because Mitchell no longer held the chair at Boston, and because a trial would cause too great a disturbance. F. J. McConnell (later bishop) demanded an immediate trial for Mitchell, but was refused.<\/p>\n

The Judiciary Committee of the General Conference of the M. E. Church, in 1908, held that the Central New York Conference action was illegal. They ruled that there was no disciplinary provision for the report of the investigating committee, or for the action of the Central New York Conference in adopting the committee\u2019s report. The report of the committee was said to have reflected upon the character of Mitchell, and it was therefore the duty of the Conference to have granted him a trial upon his demand, or to have struck from the report all reflections upon his character. The Conference had refused or neglected to do so, and therefore the action of the committee and the Conference was declared null and void.<\/p>\n

The Judiciary Committee of this General Conference also ruled that the bishops had the legal right to investigate reported charges of erroneous teaching in the seminaries of the M. E. Church.<\/p>\n

Mitchell devoted the years 1906-08 to literary work, and in 1909 traveled in Europe. He left teaching in the M. E. Church and was appointed to the chair of Hebrew (and after 1915, New Testament also) at Tufts College (a Universalist seminary) in 1910, where he remained until his death. He left unfinished an autobiography, For the Benefit of my Creditors<\/em><\/a>, published after his death, in 1922.<\/p>\n