I. Could Other Means than the Atonement Have Been Provided for Man's Salvation? 1. The Evidence from the Fact of Divine Institution. 2. The Evidence of Scripture. II. The Severity of the Atonement Justified. 1. By the Value of the Things Purchased. 2. On the Ground that it was a Voluntary Sacrifice. 3. By the Lessons it Teaches Man. REFERENCES. The texts and contexts of scriptures quoted and cited in the body of this lesson. History of Christian Doctrine (Shedd), Book V, Ch. ii; Anselm's Theory of Satisfaction; Neander's History of the Christian Religion and Doctrine, Vol. IV, pp 49-511. Taylor's Mediation and Atonement. _SPECIAL TEXT: "Put up thy sword into its place. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than Twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?" (Matt. xxvi:52, 54.)_ DISCUSSION. 1. Could Other Means than the Atonement Have Been Devised for Man's Salvation: The question, could any other plan have been devised for the redemption of man than the Atonement as made by the Christ, was discussed, in part, in a previous lesson when considering the question of possible redemption by the sovereign act of God.[A] It is a question that has been often asked, and oftener in our own day perhaps than at any previous time, since our age is pre-eminently critical, and questions the rationality of the Atonement as set forth in the scriptures and also as taught by the Catholic and the Protestant churches. Shedd propounds the question in this form: [Footnote A: See Lesson XVI.] "Does the necessity of expiation in order to pardon arise from the nature of the case, or from an arbitrary arrangement? Could the Deity have dispensed with any or all satisfaction of Justice, or is Justice of such an absolute and necessary character, that it would be impossible to save the guilty without an antecedent satisfaction of this attribute [Justice] as it would be for God to lie?"[A] [Footnote A: "History of Christian Doctrine," Shedd--Vol. II, p. 223.] Answering these questions from the point of view developed in this treatise, it would be necessary to say (1) that the necessity of expiation in order to pardon does arise from the nature of the case and not from arbitrary arrangement; (2) that the Deity could not dispense with any or all satisfaction to Justice since Justice as an attribute of God is of such an absolute and necessary character that it would be as impossible to save the guilty without an antecedent[A] satisfaction as it would be for God to lie. The attribute of Justice is as necessary to maintain in Deity as the attribute Truth.