11 December 1912 A.D. Rev. H.B. Pratt
Passes—Presbyterian Missionary to Mexicans in Southern Texas
December 11: H.B. Pratt . . . and his mom !
Henry Barrington Pratt,
Presbyterian missionary and teacher, son of Rev. Nathaniel A. and Catherine
Barrington (King) Pratt, was born near Darien, Georgia, on May 26, 1832. He
attended Oglethorpe University, graduated from Princeton Theological Seminary in
1855, and was ordained by the Cherokee Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in
the United States on September 27, 1855. On November 7, 1860, he married Joanna
Frances Gildersleeve, with whom he had three children. He served for ten years
as a missionary in Bogotá, Colombia, and had other brief assignments in Mexico,
Cuba, and the United States. He translated religious materials into Spanish for
the American Tract Society and the American Bible Society, including the Versión Moderna, published in 1893, a Bible still widely
used by Hispanic Protestants.
In 1896 Pratt settled in
Laredo, Texas, as an “evangelist to Mexicans” for the Presbyterian Executive
Committee of Home Missions. With other missionaries, he conducted numerous
revivals throughout South Texas that produced several hundred converts to the
Presbyterian Church. Pratt’s major contribution to Presbyterianism in Texas,
however, derived from his Bible Training School for Christian Workers, which he
conducted in Laredo between 1896 and 1899. The school, designed to train
converts to become effective evangelists, combined intensive Bible study and
preaching lessons with such practical and physical chores as housecleaning and
gardening. Pratt based his educational theory on economic as well as theological
and pedagogical grounds. He thought that to give “native workers” a general
education in addition to simple biblical training was self-defeating. Because
they were to work primarily with impoverished and uneducated people, Pratt
believed that Bible Training School graduates should not have a broad general
education lest they become disaffected with their congregations or be lured
into secular vocations by the temptation of high salaries and good working
conditions. Pratt considered the students sufficiently trained after a two-year
course to serve small Spanish-speaking congregations in Texas. Although his
program produced a number of successful evangelists, such as Reynaldo Ávila,
Abraham Fernández, and Elías Treviño, it also established the pattern for the
typical Presbyterian Hispanic pastor of the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries-underpaid, poorly trained, and dependent on denominational financial
support. A smallpox epidemic forced the Bible Training School to close in 1899,
and Pratt left Laredo to become pastor of a Hispanic congregation in Brooklyn,
New York. He resigned that position in 1902 and retired to Hackensack, New
Jersey, where he continued to write biblical commentaries and to translate
theological works until his death, on December 11,
1912.
Pictured at
right: The February 1852 issue of The Ladies’ Album and Family Manual. Henry
Barrington Pratt was but one member of an accomplished and distinguished
family. His father, the Rev. Nathanael Alpheus Pratt, came from good
circumstances, and had as well married into some measure of wealth. His
father-in-law was the founder of the town of Roswell, Georgia and brought Rev.
N.A. Pratt there to pastor the Roswell Presbyterian Church; he served there
from 1840 until his death in 1879. It was apparently when Henry was approaching
adulthood that his mother, Catherine Barrington Pratt, began to serve as the
lead editor of The Ladies’ Album and Family
Manual. Following is an article excerpted from the
February 1852 issue of this magazine:—
FAMILY
GOVERNMENT —ITS IMPORTANCE.
BY REV. C. CUSHING.
The importance of family
government is seen in its relations to domestic happiness, to common schools,
to civil government, and to the Divine government.
It is essential
to the peace and happiness of a home, that children be kept under proper
restraint. One child, ungoverned, often disturbs the
tranquility of an entire household. We are told that among the Hindoos, in the
houses of some of the rich, having several apartments, one room is called the
room of anger, or of the angry ; and when any members of the family are angry,
they shut themselves up in this room. Perhaps it would be well for us to
imitate the Hindoos in this respect; at all events, one angry or unruly member
of the family ought not to be allowed to destroy the peace and comfort of all.
We are wont to sing —
“ Home, sweet home,
There’s no place like home.”
And this sentiment is fully
true of every home worthy of the name. But the sweet may be made bitter, yea,
so bitter, by the want of parental government, that, in a melancholy sense, there shall be no place like home. What can be more offensive than a
household in disorder ?• Each member, instead of laboring to promote the
comfort of all, seeking, at the expense of others, his own gratification, and
none happy !
The family relation is
sometimes spoken of as a relic which has survived the ruin of the Fall. To
prove this representation true, there must be, now, in the family, that same
observance of law, and that same love which prevailed in Eden. If the husband would
find his wife happy when he goes home,— if the wife would have her husband love
his home,— if they would have their children grow up as olive plants around
their table, to beautify their home and render it blessed,— they will sustain
family government in the fear of the Lord.
Government in
the family is essential to proper discipline in the school.
Great attention has been bestowed of late to the education of the young. While,
through the influence of a board of education, normal schools, &c., there
has been, in some respect, decided improvement in our common schools ; in one
respect there is reason to fear that these schools have degenerated. They are
not so well governed as formerly. This may
be attributed, in part, to the to influence of a few prominent individuals, who
have radically wrong to views of human nature and of moral government; but to a
great extent, it arises from the fact that children are not governed at home.
If a teacher is a good
disciplinarian, much of his time, which ought to be spent in teaching, is
consumed in direct efforts to sustain his authority; much of which effort would
not be necessary, did the parents teach their children to obey at home ; and
were their influence, at all times, in favor of good government in school. Thus,
the community lose much of the advantage which they would gain, could the
teacher devote himself, unreservedly, to teaching. If the teacher is not a good
disciplinarian, the children, not being in the habit of obeying at home, will
be sure not to obey at school; hence, but little advantage is gained to any one
from the school. Parents ought to feel that a large part of the responsibility
of this rests with themselves, and, for the sake of the rising generation, see
that their children are taught at home to obey in school.
Family
government derives importance from its relation to the State. When
we inquire why it is so easy in this country to raise a mob, and why there is
in our community so much violation of law, a satisfactory answer may be found
by entering the family circle. The first lessons of disobedience and disloyalty
are learned there. If a child does not learn to yield to the authority of his
parents, when he becomes a man he will not be ready to regard the power of the
civil authorities.
The cause of popular liberty
is injured and retarded in the Old World by the want of loyalty in the New. Our
faults are greatly exaggerated, but would we take away the occasion of the
misrepresentations of royalists, and would we prove ourselves the true friends of
good government, we must begin at home, and each one rule his own house well.
The importance
of family government appears transcendently in its relation to the government
of God. Children are committed to parents, not only to be trained
for the home and the school, not only to be made good citizens, but also, and
above all, to be made the loyal subjects of the King of kings. Yes, the child
is to be trained for God and for heaven. But if he never learns to submit to
the authority of his parents, what reason is there to hope that he will bow
submissively to the authority of God 1 If, when he perceives the relation of
the parent to himself, he does not regard that relation, when recognizing the
Divine existence, he perceives the relation which God sustains to himself, why
will he any more regard this higher relation 1 If, when his parents know more
than he does, and are disposed to make a right use of their knowledge in
training him, he will not heed their guiding hand,’ what will he care for the
statutes of Him who is infinite in wisdom and love ? If his parents are able
and disposed to govern him better than he can govern himself, and yet he is
allowed to trample on their authority, the perfection of
God’s government will not prevent his rebellion against it. Here is a relation
of paramount importance, for it is endless. The rebellion of the child against
God will, if persisted in during this life, fix his eternal destiny. This view
should take the deepest hold upon the Christian parent. That children may be trained
for heaven is the great end for which they are
committed to the parent. Herein is involved a vast responsibility. It is not
enough to minister to the physical wants of the child; indeed, this is but a
small part. We are to consider his wants as an immortal being, and make the
family government subservient to the Divine. It is a solemn fact, that it will
be subservient to, or subversive of, the Divine government. The influence of
the parent upon the child will be to make him submissive to God, or to strengthen
him in his rebellion. And parents must render an account to God for this
influence by which they indirectly sustain, or subvert his authority. Parents
should feel that the relation of
their children to themselves will have an important influence upon their
relation to God.
The training of an immortal
mind is a momentous work ! “When Bacon, the sculptor, was retouching the statue
of Chatham, in Westminster Abbey, a divine, who was a stranger, tapped him on
the shoulder, and said, “ Take care what you are doing. You work for eternity.”
To parents it may well be said, In family government, take care what you do. In the highest sense, you work for eternity. When the sculptured stone
shall have crumbled into dust, the souls of your children will show the work of
your hands.
[excerpted from The Ladies’ Album and Family Manual, 18.2 (February 1852):
58-60.]
No comments:
Post a Comment