Whoever, indeed, pronounceth concerning his neighbour's intentions
otherwise than as they are evidently expressed by words, or
signified by overt actions, is a slanderer; because he pretendeth to
know, and dareth to aver, that which he nowise possibly can tell
whether it be true; because the heart is exempt from all
jurisdiction here, is only subject to the government and trial of
another world; because no man can judge concerning the truth of such
accusations, because no man can exempt or defend himself from them:
so that apparently such practice doth thwart all course of justice
and equity.

4. Another kind is, perverting a man's words or actions
disadvantageously by affected misconstruction. All words are
ambiguous, and capable of different senses, some fair, some more
foul; all actions have two handles, one that candour and charity
will, another that disingenuity and spite may lay hold on; and in
such cases to misapprehend is a calumnious procedure, arguing
malignant disposition and mischievous design. Thus when two men did
witness that our Lord affirmed, He "could demolish the temple, and
rear it again in three days"--although He did indeed speak words to
that purpose, meaning them in a figurative sense, discernible enough
to those who would candidly have minded His drift and way of
speaking--yet they who crudely alleged them against Him are called
false witnesses. "At last," saith the Gospel, "came two false
witnesses, and said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the
temple," etc. Thus also when some certified of St. Stephen, as
having said that "Jesus of Nazareth should destroy that place, and
change the customs that Moses delivered;" although probably he did
speak words near to that purpose, yet are those men called false