In the distribution this is a proper fallacy, when anything simply or generally granted, thereby is inferred a certain respect or special not meant nor intended: as, _He that saith there are not seven sacraments, saith true._ _He that saith there are only three, saith there are not seven._ _Therefore he that saith there are three, saith true._ The right answer is, that the proposition is not necessarily true; for there may be a way to say there are not seven, and yet affirm an untruth. Fallacies of judgment, are those that are referred to the judgment of one sentence, or of more. Of one sentence, either to the proprieties of an axiom, or to the sorts. To the proprieties, as when a true is put for a false, and contrarily: an affirmative for a negative, and contrarily. So some take the words of St. John, _I do not say concerning it, that you shall not pray_, for no denial; when as it doth deny to pray for that sin. To the sorts, are referred either to the simple or compound. The first, when the general is taken for the special, and contrarily. So the Papists, by this fallacy, do answer to that general saying of Paul; _We are justified with faith without the works of the law_: which they understand of works done before faith, when that was never called in doubt. The fallacies which are referred to a compound axiom, are those which are referred either to a _disjoined_, or _knitting_ axiom. To a _disjoined_ axiom, when the parts indeed are not _disjoined_: as, _Solomon was either a king, or did bear rule_. To a _knitting_ axiom, is when the parts are not necessarily knit together; as, _If Rome be on fire, the Pope’s chair is burnt_. And hitherto of the first sort of fallacies referred to judgment. Now followeth the second. And they be either those that are referred to a _syllogism_; or to _method_. And they again are _general_, and _special_. _General_, which are referred to the general properties of a syllogism. It is either when all the parts are _denied_; or are _particular_. All parts denied: as, _No pope is a devil._ _No man is a devil._ _Therefore no man is a pope._ And this must be answered, that it is not according to the definition of a negative syllogism, which must always have one affirmative. All particular: as, _some unlawful thing must be suffered; as, namely, that which cannot be taken away_, _The stews is some unlawful thing._ _Therefore the stews must be suffered._ This is answered, by the definition of a special syllogism; which is, that hath one part general. The _special_, are those which are simple or compound. The _simple_ is of two sorts. The first is more plain. The second less plain. More plain, is when the assumption is denied, or the question is not particular: as, _Every apostle may preach abroad_: _Some apostle is not a pope_, _Therefore some pope may not preach abroad_. Also, _every pope is a lord_: _Some pope may give an universal license._