Hor. There, I believe, you wrong them, for I have seen some of these
Edicts, where Duelling is call'd an Antichristian Practice, which God
was highly offended at.

Cleo. In wording of the Edicts, indeed, some such Thing was put in for
Form's Sake; but the Regulations themselves, by which the Men of
Honour were to walk, were openly Antichristian; and in some Cases,
instead of Teaching Men to forgive those that had trespas'd against
them, they obliged and forced the Offended to shew their Resentment,
tho' they would rather not, and desired to be excused.

Hor. Where the Affront was very heinous, I know what you say is true.
But you set these Things in a strange Light. I can make the same
Glosses upon our Laws, which oblige me to prosecute a Man that has
robb'd me, if I can catch him, whether I will or not; and he shall be
hang'd, tho' I forgive him the Injury, and even would beg his Life.

Cleo. There is a vast Difference between the two Cases, a Robbery, and
an Affront: No body hinders you from forgiving a Man that robb'd you;
but notwithstanding your pardoning him, he is punish'd for acting
against the Laws; therefore his Offence is against the King, who is
the Guardian and Superintendant of them. And No body but the King can
pardon the Trespasses that are committed against his Crown and
Dignity. Whoever robs you, must be hang'd, because he robb'd, not
because he robb'd YOU in particular: Tho' you are bound to prosecute
him for Robbing you, yet the Injury is reckon'd as done to the
Publick; and you become a Criminal your Self, if you connive at his
Escape, tho' he restor'd to you what he had robb'd you of. But in the
Case of an Affront the Injury is reckon'd to be done to him only who
receiv'd it. His Anger, as I said before, is thought to be just, and