Laviugton, George, an English prelate, noted for his antagonism to AVesley and Whitefield, was born in Wiltshire in 1083 ; became canon of St. Paul's, London, in 1732, and in 1747 Avas promoted to the bishopric of Exeter. Shortly after his elevation to the episcopal dignity, Lavington, who had from the first looked unfa- vorably upon the Methodistic movement, found an op- portunity to exert liis episcopal jurisdiction upon one of the ministers of his diocese, the liev. JMr. Thompson, " the tolerant and zealous rector of St. Gennis," who had dared to exert himself in behalf of a more genuine and active religious spirit among the people of his own par- ish, and the community in its neighborhood. In this instance the bishop failed utterly of cutting short the evangelizing efforts of an earnest and zealous servant of God, and he gave vent to his feelings by a public attack on the originators of the whole movement — Wesley and Whitefield — in a pamphlet entitled The Enthusiasm of 3fethodists and Papists comjiared (LoniXon, 1749,3 parts, 8vo), in which he " exaggerated their real faidts, and imputed to them many that were monstrous fictions." The attack was at once taken up by both tlie persons assailed in the pamphlet, and from the position assumed by Wesley in his answer many of the English Church divines have plucked an arrow in defence of their own Church in Wesley's day. Southey was the first to cen- sure Wesley for the use of intemperate language in his reply to Lavington, but tlicre is really no reason for any one, however anxious to shield Mr. Wesley, to de- fend his harsh treatment of the bishop, when we con- sider that the provocation was great indeed. Mr. Ty- erman, Wesley's latest biographer (London, 1871, 3 vols. 8vo ; N. York, Harper and Brothers, 3 vols. 8vo, 1872), certainly goes too far when he attempts to clear Wes- ley's skirts by saying that Lavington " deserved all he got," and that he was '• a buffooning bishop" and '• a cow- ardly calumniator" (ii, 94, 153). But there is no jus- tice in the attempts of modern English writers to praise bishop Lavington at the expense of Jlr. Wesley. The bishop made a most undignified assault on men who were engaged in a work approved and owned of God, and, as his later conduct towards lady Huntingdon and Wesley himself ])rovcs, retreated from the posi- tion he had taken, '•ajjologizing to her ladysliip [Hunt- ingdon I and the IMcssrs. Whitefield and Wesley for the harsh and unjust censures which he was led to pass on them," and even requested them to " acce])t his un- feigned regret at liaving unjustly wounded their feel- ings, and expose<l tllem to the odium of the wuxM" {Ladj //untinr/dan's Life ami Times, ch. vii\ How iu the face of this position, however hypocritical on the part of Lav- ington, any English writers can afford to defend bishop Laviiigton's position, as has been done lately in the North British Review (Jan. 1871), seems to us stiU more
LAVIPEDIUM
283
LAW
strange when we take into consideration the attitude of Wesley on his last meeting with hishop Lavington : '• I was well iilease<l to partake of the Lord's Supper with my old op])()nent, bishop Lavington. Oh, may we sit down together in the kingdom of our Father!" record- ed by Wesley himself in liis journal of 17G2. Bishop Lavington, indeed, seems to have been fond of polemical extravagances, for a few years after liis attack on jNIeth- odism he wrote The Moravians compared and detected (1755, 8vo). Besides these two attacks upon fellow- Christians, he published some occasional Sermons. He died in 17G2. See, besides the references already made, Polwhele, ilistortj of Devonshire, i, 313 ; Stevens, Hist, of ilethodism, i, 247.300 ; Meth. Quart. Revieic, 1871, p. 306 sq. (J.H.W.)
Lavipedium. See Foox-washixg.
La^w is usually detuied as a rule of action ; it is more properly a precept or command coming from a su- perior authorit}-, which an inferior is bound to obey. Such laws emanate from the king or legislative body of a nation. Such enactments of" the powers that be" are recognised in Scripture as resting upon the ultimate au- thority of the divine Lawgiver (Rom. xiii, 1). We propose in this article to discuss only the various dis- tinctions or applications of the term, in an ethical sense, reserving for a separate place the consideration of the Mosaic law, in its various aspects, ceremonial, moral, and civil.
1. Classification ofLau-s as to their interior Nature. — 1. " Penal Laivs" are such as have some penalty to en- force them. All the laws of God are and cannot but be penal, because every breach of his law is sin, and meri- torious of punishment.
2. " Directinrj Laws'''' are prescriptions or maxims with- out any punishment annexed to them.
3. "Positive Laws" are precepts which are not found- ed upon any reasons known to those to wliom they are given. Thus, in the state of innocence, God gave the law of the Sabbath ; of abstinence from the fruit of the tree of knowledge, etc. In childhood most of the pa- rental ct)mmands are necessarily of this nature, owing to the incapacity of the child to understand the grounds of their inculcation.
IL Certain Special Uses of the Tej-m. — 1. " Laio ofFlon- or'" is a system of rules constructed by people of fashion, and calculated to facilitate theit intercourse with one another, and for no other purpose. Consequently noth- ing is adverted to by the law of honor but what tends to incommode this intercourse. Hence this law only prescribes and regulates the duties betwixt equals, omit- ting such as relate to the Supreme Being, as well as those which we owe to our inferiors, and in most in- stances is favorable to the licentious indulgence of the natural passions. Thus it allows of fornication, adul- terj', dnmkcnness, prodigality, duelling, and of revenge in the extreme, and lays no stress upon the virtues op- posite to these.