Luke xvii. 3.--If thy brother _trespass_ against thee. ~Ean hamartêsê ho adelphos sou~. 4. And seven times in a day _turn_ again to thee. ~Kai heptakis tês hêmêras epistrepsê~. Luke xvi. 28.--Lest they also _come_ into this place of torment. ~Mê kai autos elthôsin eis touton ton topon tês basanou~.[114] Is not the sense of the foregoing verbs _future_? Are not the verbs in the original, either in the future tense, or in the indefinite tenses, which, in the subjunctive mode, _usually_ have the sense of the future, and perhaps _never_ the sense of the present? Why then should we consider the English verbs as in the present time? Either the translators made a mistake, and placed the verbs in a wrong tense; or Lowth and his followers have mistaken the tense, and called that present which is really future. That the fault is, in some measure, to be ascribed to the translators, is evident from their using the same form of the verb, after a conjunction, when the original Greek is in the present of the indicative. 1 Cor. xvi. 22.--If any man _love_ not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be, &c. ~Ei tis ou philei ton Kyrion Iêsoun Christon, êtô~, &c. 1 Cor. xiv. 37.--If any man think himself a prophet. ~Ei de tis dokei prophêtês einai~. 38.--If any man _be_ ignorant, let him be ignorant still. ~Ei de tis agnoei, agnoeitô~. In these instances, the verbs express conditional facts in the present time. In the original they are in the indicative present; and on what authority did the translators introduce a different mode in English? Can they be justified by the idioms of the language at the time when they lived? Was the subjunctive always used after a conjunction? By no means: Their own translation of other passages proves the contrary. 1 Cor. xv. 13.--And if there _is_ no resurrection of the dead. ~Ei de anastasis nekrôn ouk estin~. Here is the present tense of the indicative used, where the fact mentioned is supposed, by the argument, to be at least doubtful. In other places the present time of the same mode is used, where the future would have been more accurate. Prov. ii. 3, 4.--"Yea if thou _criest_ after knowlege, and _liftest_ up thy voice for understanding; if thou _seekest_ for her as for hid treasures, then shalt thou understand," &c. What conclusion shall we draw from this state of facts? This at least may be said with safety, either that the English modes and tenses have not been ascertained and understood, or that the best of our writers have been extremely negligent.