if pe) 
and éaw€ey appear to have a definite fignification, but fuch inftances 
are comparatively few. The tirft aorift, on the contrary, is moft 
frequently ufed as a paft definite; and indeed fo frequently, that 
srammarians obferve it is oftner introduced to denote the paft 
perfe&% time than their preterperfe& tenfe itfelf. Have we not 
reafon then to fuppofe that its proper meaning is of a definite 
nature, and that it is not proper/y an aorift? Sanctius feems to 
have been of this opinion when he calls the fecond only by the 
name of aorift. And if it can be fhewn that fuch a tenfe was 
actually wanting in the Greek language, to exprefs the time of an 
ation which is paft and perfect, will not the truth of the pofition 
be ftrongly confirmed? In fhewing this, in faé& it will require more 
pains to diftinguith the firft aorift from the preterperfe& than from 
the fecond. 
Havine then diftinguifhed the firft from the fecond aorift, by 
arguing that the firft is not proper/y an aorift, and that where they 
feem to be ufed in the fame fenfe, either fuech a contraft as Dr. 
Gregory alludes to is intended, or it arifes from neceffity in de- 
feGtive verbs; I proceed tu fhew that fuch a definite, as I conceive 
the firft aorift to be, was wanting in the Greek language, and is 
not fupplied by the preterperfea. 
Tue tenfes of vulgar and philofophic Grammar frequently . 
differ, or, in other words, the times which common grammarians 
fup- 
the only inftances in which the Greeks ever ufe the fecond aorifts thus, -without ap- 
parent diftin€tion from the firft, are where they are the fecond aorifts of defective 
verbs, which have no firft aorifts, at leaft in common ufe ; 
