"They have exhausted the resources of sophistry to make it appear that all the suffering in the world exists to prevent greater---that misery exists, for fear lest there should be misery: a thesis which if ever so well maintained, could only avail to explain and justify the works of limited beings, compelled to labour under conditions independent of their own will; but can have no application to a Creator assumed to be omnipotent, who, if he bends to a supposed necessity, himself makes the necessity which he bends to."
...why would a perfectly good being permit evil and suffering in the first place, especially if we are to believe that He is omnipotent, and thus has it easily within His power to eliminate it, or to not create it at all?
At least as an aside, I think Mr. Mills undersells the treasure of being a distinct being -- a free spirit, despite suffering. Who would trade it in? I don't think he would. I sure wouldn't. What's more (much... much... more): God being all good will see to it that each has the opportunity to be reconciled with God. Again, the 'better question' (the utilitarian question, surely) that I mentioned is, "God being all good, how is (was) evil reconciled with (by) his power?" Wow, what a wonder to be a distinct, self-directed person adopted to be God's son in Christ and to know surpassing love.
Looking at this again in a less hurried time and with a newly mown lawn (and lawn mowing being wonderful for meditation) I think I found answers to this paradox that satisfy me, at least, even if they were less than well expressed.
God's goodness is merely a reflection of who He is and of course all he creates.... God will not give his glory (nature, substance) to another, which would leave him less than omnipotent and less than complete (completely satisfactory, with complete integrity, i.e., completely good) and which perhaps would risk evil greater than Lucifer's (perhaps this would be a valid injustice for Mr. Mill).... But, God shares his glory with those who are in full relationship with him.... Real life as a person is relation to God as a distinct being.... Fully formed and fully informed beings inevitably are morally responsible for themselves (apt to include "light, momentary" discipline by an intently caring authority).... Knowing our failing, God provided us reconciliation as a new, inextricably God-fused spirit by our agreement to relinquish our separation and receive this relationship (by covenant)* -- the Father and the Father's Word knowing what they'd have to do as he created us and expressed as early as Genesis 3:15... Being the testifying first fruits, having known sin/evil and now knowing God... I think it's kind of like Hank's air flight phenomenon. It really happened.
The real necessity is for us to be in relation to God, and of course by the way he really has happened to provide.
_________________________________________________
*If we hadn't sinned and suffered with the knowledge of good and evil, could we have had the opportunity for such an agreement for this so deeply and essentially communing relationship with God? And would we have really known what it meant?