by his counsels for forty years. Hence the
inimitable tenderness and pathos that pervade the book of Deuteronomy.

When now we take into account all these altered circumstances, we have a
full explanation of the peculiarities which mark the book of Deuteronomy
as compared with the preceding books. Were these peculiarities wanting,
we should miss a main proof of its genuineness. Nevertheless the book is
thoroughly Mosaic in its style, and the scholar who reads it in the
original Hebrew can detect peculiar forms of expression belonging only
to the Pentateuch. As to alleged disagreements between some of its
statements and those of the earlier books, it is sufficient to remark
that upon a candid examination they mostly disappear; and even where we
cannot fully explain them, this furnishes no valid ground for denying
the genuineness of either portion of the law. Such seeming discrepancies
are not uncommon when a writer of acknowledged credibility repeats what
he has before written. Compare, for example, the three narratives of the
apostle Paul's conversion which are recorded in the book of Acts.

The question as to the extent of meaning which should be given in
Deuteronomy to the expressions, "a copy of this law," "the words of this
law," "this book of the law," is one upon which expositors are not
agreed, nor is it essential; since, as we have seen, the Mosaic
authorship of the former part of the law rests upon broader grounds.

In Deut. 27:3, 8, it seems necessary to understand the
expression, "all the words of this law," which were to be
written upon tables of stone set up on mount Ebal, of the
blessings and curses--ver. 12, 13--contained in this and the
following chapter. But elsewhere, chs. 17:18; 31:9, 24-26, we
must certainly include at least the whole of Deuteronomy. If we
suppose that it was Moses' custom to write out the precepts of
the law with the historical notices pertaining to them in a
continuous roll, which was enlarged from time to time, and that
he added to this roll the book of Deuteronomy, then the words in
question must be understood of the entire body of precepts from
the beginning. But if, as seems to be intimated in Deut. 31:24,
he wrote Deuteronomy in a separate book, ("_in a book_," without
the article,) the words naturally refer to Deuteronomy alone.
This work, as containing a summary of the law--_a second law_,
as the word _Deutero