132 Notices respecting New Books. 
that name. By Cluverius and Mela they are termed Taurus, 
from their being supposed to be a continuation of that mountain 
—by Aristotle and Quintus Curtius they are called Caucasus—by 
Pliny, Cellarius, and Ptolemy, they are mentioned by the name 
of the Iyrcanii Montes, from their passing through the country of 
Hyreania—by Arrian they are designated as Mons Matieni—by 
others they are since called Himmaleh and Hindoo Koh: but 
we know that none of these is a genuiiie name ; indeed, they are 
partial only, and such as have accidentally been applied to them; 
as we learn from many of the Greek authors. But are we not 
to suppose that these important mountains, before any Grecian 
had existence, were denoted by some name? And is it not pre- 
bable that they were known to the predecessors of Moses by the 
general title of Ararat? Or, may we not justify the presumption, 
‘that Moses, from an intimate knowledge of their character and 
consequence, endued them with the appellation of the Mountains. 
of Ararat ? 
** Harcius denominates the whole range from the Euphrates 
to the Ganges § the Montes Araratis.’ 
** Dr, Heylin condemns the opinion of the atk having rested 
in Armenia, and supposes it more likely to have remained on 
“some part of the Imaus mountains in India,‘which are somewhat 
further rorth-eastward from the spot which we propose to con- 
sider as the place of disembarkation. 
** Dr. Stukely, who has investigated the subject with the sa- 
gacity of a philosepher and the discrimination of a critic, con- 
cludes the seat of the ark, after the flood, to have been rather 
westward of the head of the Indus, and about the point of each 
‘Tongitude to which the map of scriptural and classical geography 
extends. 
“ We might add numerous other conjectures of the same kind; 
‘but the testimony of one comnientator who has patience to sift, 
judgement to discern, and impartiality to decide, is of more 
weight and value than a cordon of these who copy one another’s 
errors: and as the purpose of this debate will require bat few 
uiore corroborations and arguments, we shall, after advancing 
one or two others which possess, in our opinion, the most con- 
sequence, bring the question to an issue. 
“« If we search to discover them, there may generally be dis- 
cerned some extraordinary signs of divine omniscience and con- 
trivance in every act of the Almighty Master ; and it is no less 
than marvellous, that the grand streams of the Indus, Oxus, 
Jaxartes, with some branches of the Ganges, and a great many 
other rivers, derive their sources from about the central district 
of the three prineipal divisions of the earth, and which is in that 
part of ancient Aria, or Ariana, where we propose to consider 
that 
