Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1902-06-26
WouId Good God Allow Such
A Disaster AS Mt. Pe1ee's Eruption?
BY BISHOP WARREN A. GAMBLER.


that Voltaire's doctrines when set
in operation in France were not
what the boys call "a bowling sue
cess" although they produced howl
ing enough of the most diabolical
sort. And may 1 inquire If this
New York editor, who seeks to re-
prove God for cruelty in the matter
of the laws governing earthquakes
and volcanoes. has ever been able
to convince his fellow-citizens that
he wes able to govern so much as
Manhattan island without laws
and penalties? Before he abolishes
earthquakes and volcanoes and puts
the Almighty out of sight, suppose
he takes IN hand some smaller re-
formations?
1t is evident that if God would
abdicate in favor Of these sapient
souls their first act would be to ban
ish pain from the world, especially
all physical pain. They manifestly
hold that the presence of suffering
impeacnes the goodness of God and
that it therefore forces them to
believe in blind and impersonal fate
or force, rather than acknowledge
the existence of an Omnipotent Be
ing who would permit such thing
as human pain. Are they prepared
to prove that a program Of painless
ness would be best for the universe?
Would such program, If carried
out, result in the production of the
noblest forms of moral life? Or
would 1t turn out only gross speci-
mems of beastly wantonness? Are
these correctors of God and revis-
ers OF natures laws ready to pro-
pose as a reform measure that high
moral ends shall be sacrificed in
order to secure exemption from
physical discomfort? Will they make
physical painlessness or moral per-
lection the goal of creation? Would
they have us believe that the earth
ought to be a never failing pasture
for men and women to roam and
Craze in like fat cattle. with never
a thought higher than their own Sc
curity from suffering? Such a view
of the world may commend itself
to a certain sort Of coarse minds;
but for my part 1 could never be-
lieve in the wisdom or the goodness
of a God who would make and MAIN
tain a world like that. 1t is con-
ceivable that a devil Of sufficient
power might devise and execute
such a program to promote selfish
ness; but certainly no benevolent
being would enact such scheme
to produce holiness.
Let us bear in mind that this alb
% q
the Lisbon earthquake and this pa
roxysmal railing of the New York
editor against eruption Of the Mar
Unique volcano lie quite as much
against the laws of nature as
against the God of nature. They
cannot get rid of the fact that thou
sands persisted by those disasters
whether God or nature did the
deeds. They imagine that they feel
better by believing that no person
had anything to do with those ca
tastrophes, but that the events fell
out as thesrelentless results of i'm
personal forces. The crimes Of
earthquakes and volcanoes by
which multitudes lost their lives
were too palpable to. be concealed
or denied; but these men propose
to avoid the necessity of finding
God guilty of those crimes by
bringing in a verdict to the effect
that I'VE, the jury, find the deceas-
ed came to their deaths by causes
entirely unknown to us, we being
persuaded that no person had any
thing to do with 1t, because we are
convinced that no person would in
f1ict or allow such pain"
But where is the evidence to sus-
tain such a verdict or to justify the
assumption upon which it rests? I
make bold to affirm that the YER
dict is contrary to the facts of ma
ture and that the assumption upon
which 1t proceeds is absolutely un-
tenable. All the facts of nature
point to a person back of the laws
of nature and they show that great
Creative Being perfecting all things
by pain. So that all the voices of
nature declare in apostolic Ian
guage: "We know that the whole
creation groaneth and travaileth in
pain together until now"
If there is no person back of ma
ture and above nature whence came
all the persons in the world, includ-
ing those who lost their lives at
Lisbon and st. Pierre? Can imper-
sonal forces, however long continued
in action and reaction, ever culmin-
ate in personal beings? Does not
the derived existence Of persons on
the earth point us Enthusiastically to
an underived, self-existent Person
above and before all things? And
if there be such person, shall we
hastily conclude that He is a malig-
nant and cruel Person because we
cannot discern all the beneficent
ends He has in view by making a
world in which earthquakes and
volcanoes occur? Or, to put the
question in another form, shall we
on account of the presence of pain
on the earth conclude that there is
no God or else that the God who
exists is a bad God?
What If in the midst of the earth's
painful history there should appear
a majestic person bearing divine
characteristics while bending be-
meath a self-imposed burden Of more
than mortal woea What if God
should manifest Himself as ''the
Man OF. Sorrows? Would we not then
conclude that He was aiming at
ends so much more precious than
mere painlessness that to accom-
plish them He would endure
the most excruciating agonies?
Could we after such reve-
ton of Himself call pain
evil and seek to run away from
it as from base and goddess thing?
Would it not be better for us to try
to discover the ultimate object of
his agonizfng and then entering into