"Whether our conduct _be_ inspected, and we _are_ under a righteous government, or under no government at all."----Priestley's Pref. to Let. to a Phil. Unb. What a confusion of modes! or rather of tenses! "Tho THOU _be_ long, in the first part of the verse," says Sheridan, in the passage just quoted; yet soon after uses the indicative in a phrase precisely similar; "And tho it _is_ impossible to prolong the sound of this word." Can this great critic give a reason for this change of modes? Such examples serve to show at least the necessity of studying our language with more attention, than even many eminent scholars are willing to bestow. It has been remarked by Lowth, and many other writers on this subject, that "the verb itself in the present, and the auxiliary both of the present and past imperfect times, often carry with them somewhat of a future sense."[112] Thus, _if he_ _come tomorrow_, _if he should or would come tomorrow_, carry _somewhat of a future sense_. The writer should have gone farther, and said that these expressions are in future time; for they form the English future, and belong to no other tense. This would have been the truth, and have prevented the numberless errors which have proceeded from his arranging them in the present tense of the subjunctive. Let us attend to the following passages. "This can never happen till patriotism _flourish_ more in Britain."--Home's Sketches, book 2. s. 9. "Pray heaven, he _prove_ so, when you come to him."----Two Gent. of Verona, act 2. s. 10. "But if thou _linger_ in my territories."----Same, act 3. s. 2. "Lest, growing ruinous, the building _fall_."----Same, act 5. s. 6. "If the second _be_ pronounced thus, the verse will be degraded into hobbling prose."----Sheridan's Art of Reading. It is needless to multiply similar passages; the same use of the verb, without the personal termination, occurs in almost every page of our best writings, and it is perfectly correct. But will any person contend that the verbs in these passages are in the present tense? The sense is entirely future, and could not be translated into Latin or French, without employing the future tense. The expressions are elliptical, and cannot be clearly understood, without inserting _shall_ or _should_ before the verbs. This pretended present tense of the subjunctive is therefore the real future of the indicative. To confirm this remark, let us attend to some other passages. "Tho he _slay_ me, yet will I trust in him." "Unless he _wash_ his flesh, he shall not eat of the holy thing." In the original Hebrew these verbs are in the future tense; and so are most similar expressions.[113] Matth. vii. 10.--Or if he _ask_ a fish, will he give him a serpent? ~Kai ean ichthyn aitêsê mê ophin epidôsei autô?~ Rom. xiv. 15.--But if thy brother _be_ grieved with thy meat. ~Ei gar dia brôma ho adelphos sou lupeitai~.