nto the holiest through His death and ascension to the right
hand of the Majesty. But the initial and the ultimate stages of the act
must not be put asunder. Nothing comes between. Our author elsewhere
speaks of Christ's resurrection as a historical fact.[193] But His
resurrection does not form a distinct notion in the idea of His entrance
into the holiest place.

The Apostle has spoken of the former covenant with surprising severity,
not to say harshness. It was the law of a carnal commandment; it has
been set aside because of its weakness and unprofitableness; it has
grown old and waxed aged; it was nigh unto vanishing away. His austere
language will compare with St. Paul's description of heathenism as a
bondage to weak and beggarly elements.

The root of all the mischief was unreality. Our author brings his
argument to a close by contrasting the shadow and the substance, the
unavailing sacrifices of the Law, which could only renew the remembrance
of sins, and the sacrifice of the Son, which has fulfilled the will of
God.

The Law had only a shadow.[194] He is careful not to say that the Law
was itself but a shadow. On the contrary, the very promise includes that
God will put His laws in the heart and write them upon the mind. This
was one of "the good things to come." Endless repetition of sacrifice
after sacrifice year by year in a weary round of ceremonies only made it
more and more evident that men were walking in a vain show and
disquieting themselves in vain. The Law was holy, righteous, and good;
but the manifestation of its nature in sacrifices was unreal, like the
dark outline of an object that breaks the stream of light. Nothing more
substantial, as a revelation of God's moral character; was befitting or
possible in that stage of human development, when the purposes of His
grace also not seldom found expression in dreams of the night and
apparitions of the day.

To prove the unreal nature of these ever-recurring sacrifices, the
writer argues that otherwise they would have ceased to be offered,
inasmuch as the worshippers, if they had been once really cleansed from
their guilt, would have had no more conscience of sins.[195] The
reasoning is very remarkable. It is not that God would have ceased to
require sacrifices, but that the worshipper would have ceased to offer
them. It implies that, when a sufficient atonement for sin has been
offered to God, the sinner knows it is sufficient, and, as the result,