In Greek the case is nearly the same. Several instances of the indicative after the conditional conjunction ~ei~ (if) have already been quoted from scripture; and similar instances without number may be produced from profane writers. "~Ei oun houtôs echei, ephê, ô Kyre, ti an allo tis kreitton heuroi, ê pempein eis Persas, kai hama men didaskein autous hoti ei ti peisontai Mêdoi, eis Persas to deinon hêxei, hama de aitein pleion strateuma~;"---- Xenoph. de Cyri. Inst. l. 2. p. 80. Lond. Ed. Here the verb ~echei~ is in the present tense of the indicative, after a conjunction denoting condition or doubt; "if the affair _is_ so--if such _is_ the true state of affairs, Cyrus, what better method _can be taken_ (~heuroi~) than to send to the Persians, and inform them that _if_ any accident _happen_ to the Medes (so we should render ~peisontai~, which is in the future) calamity will fall upon the Persians also, and let us ask for a greater force." In French, the conditional conjunctions do not require the subjunctive mode. "Si ma prédiction _est_ fausse, vous serez libre de nous immoler dans trois jours."--Telemaque, liv. 1. "S'il _est_ vrai que vous aimiez la justice."--Liv. 4. If my prediction _is_ false--if it _is_ true--are correct modes of speaking in French. No argument therefore in favor of the use of the English subjunctive, can be drawn from the analogy of other languages. But this subjunctive form is not agreeable to the structure of the language. It has been demonstrated that our conjunctions are mostly old Saxon verbs in the imperative mode. Let us resolve some sentences where the subjunctive form is used; for example, the passages before quoted. "If he _have_ any knowlege of actual existence, he must be satisfied."----Priestley's Letters. Resolved--"He have any knowlege of actual existence, (if) give that, he must be satisfied." Is this English? "If thou be the son of God, command that these stones be made bread."----Matth. iv. 3. Resolved--"Thou be the son God, give that, command," &c. "Tho he slay me, yet will I trust in him." Resolved--"He slay me, grant it, yet will I trust in him." This is the literal construction of those sentences; the two first are present time, the last, which is future, is merely elliptical. If therefore, _I be_, _he have_, are good English in the present tense of the indicative, the foregoing are correct expressions; if not, they are incorrect; for every such conditional sentence is resolvable into two or more declaratory phrases. Let us substitute the Latin derivative, which precisely answers to _if_, viz. _suppose_; thus, in place of "if thou be the son of God," write, "_suppose_ thou be the son of God," does not every ear acknowlege the impropriety? The only difference between the two expressions is this; _if_ is a _Saxon_ verb in the imperative mode, and _suppose_, a _Latin_ one in the same mode.