difficulty relating solely to the conception of infinite power, and not at all to the moral attributes of God.[BG] [BG] See _Prolegomena Logica_, p. 77 (2nd ed., p. 85.) Mr. Mill concludes this chapter with another instance of that _ignoratio elenchi_ which has been so abundantly manifested throughout his previous criticisms. His opponent, he allows, "would and does admit that the qualities as conceived by us bear _some likeness_ to the justice and goodness which belong to God, since man was made in God's image." But he considers that this "semi-concession" "destroys the whole fabric" of Mr. Mansel's argument. "The Divine goodness," he says, "which is said to be a different thing from human goodness, but of which the human conception of goodness is some imperfect reflexion or resemblance, does it agree with what men call goodness in the _essence_ of the quality--in what _constitutes_ it goodness? If it does, the 'Rationalists' are right; it is not illicit to reason from the one to the other. If not, the divine attribute, whatever else it may be, is not goodness, and ought not to be called by the name." Now the question really at issue is not whether the "Rationalist" argument is licit or illicit, but whether, in its lawful use, it is to be regarded as infallible or fallible. We have already quoted a portion of Mr. Mansel's language on this point; we will now quote two more passages, which, without any comment, will sufficiently show how utterly Mr. Mill has mistaken the purport of the argument which he has undertaken to examine.