With reference to the three _Postdiluvian_ Tables, we find that the discrepancies of the three texts exhibit greater irregularities in Tables V. and VI. than in Table IV. It is manifest that _these_ discrepancies are also _the work of design or artifice_, and not the offspring of chance or mistake. The regular _centenary difference_ between the Hebrew and the Septuagint, occurs in _six_ of the _Antepaidogonian_ ages, namely, the _first seven_, omitting the _second_, which, as we have seen, is wanting both in the Hebrew and the Samaritan; while, singular to remark, in these six ages, the Samaritan agrees exactly with the Septuagint! To counterbalance this _regular centenary decrease_ in the _Antepaidogonian_ ages in the Hebrew, we should have expected, as in the former case, that there would be a _regular centenary increase_ of the corresponding _Postpaidogonian_ ages, in order to preserve the integrity of the _whole lives_. This appears, however, to have been considered as a matter of no moment in regard to the _whole lives_ of the Postdiluvian Patriarchs, because the usual obituary statements regarding them have been entirely omitted both in the Hebrew and the Septuagint, while they have been preserved in the Samaritan. Accordingly, we find that the Samaritan, in the _Postpaidogonian_ ages, agrees only _in two out of the six_ with the Septuagint, and _in none at all_ with the Hebrew. Moreover, the difference between the Samaritan and the Hebrew, is an _exact centenary_ in _five out of the six_; while the Hebrew coincides entirely with the Septuagint in _four_,—_one_ of the remaining _two_, being the only case in which there is an _exact centenary increase_ to balance the _centenary decrease_ in the corresponding _Antepaidogonian_ age. In the corresponding _whole lives_, the Samaritan agrees with the Hebrew in _five out of the six_, while the Septuagint and the Hebrew agree only in _one_. The assimilation of the Samaritan to the Hebrew in the _whole lives_, and its almost perfect agreement with the Septuagint in the _Antepaidogonian_ ages, while it differs so much from both in other respects, render its testimony as an uncorrupted witness quite inadmissible; yet, as it contains manifest traces of the truth, especially in regard to the latter statements, on which the chronology mainly depends, we deem the double testimony of the Septuagint and Samaritan of very considerable importance to our argument. This importance is greatly increased, when we consider that the statements respecting the _whole lives_ in the three texts cannot be compared, because they are now only to be found in the Samaritan, and, even in it, in a mutilated form; the Hebrew and Septuagint columns of Table VI. having been obtained from those of Tables IV. and V., by the simple process of addition. We, therefore, entirely agree with Dr. Hales[14] in the opinion, that they must have originally existed in all the texts;