harm in giving this name to
any _thing_, or any _circumstance_ that is capable of producing these
effects. If it should hereafter appear not to be a substance, we may
change our phraseology, if we think proper.

On the other hand I dislike the use of the term _fire_, as a constituent
principle of natural bodies, because, in consequence of the use that has
generally been made of that term, it includes another thing or
circumstance, viz. _heat_, and thereby becomes ambiguous, and is in
danger of misleading us. When I use the term phlogiston, as a principle
in the constitution of bodies, I cannot mislead myself or others,
because I use one and the same term to denote only one and the same
_unknown cause_ of certain well-known effects. But if I say that _fire_
is a principle in the constitution of bodies, I must, at least,
embarrass myself with the distinction of fire _in a state of action_,
and fire _inactive_, or quiescent. Besides I think the term phlogiston
preferable to that of fire, because it is not in common use, but
confined to philosophy; so that the use of it may be more accurately
ascertained.

Besides, if phlogiston and the electric matter be the same thing, though
it cannot be exhibited alone, in a _quiescent state_, it may be
exhibited alone under one of its modifications, when it is in _motion_.
And if light be also phlogiston, or some modification or subdivision of
phlogiston, the same thing is capable of being exhibited alone in this
other form also.

In my paper on the _conducting power of charcoal_, (See Philosophical
Transactions, vol. 60. p. 221) I observed that there is a remarkable
resemblance between metals and charcoal; as in both these substances
there is an intimate union of phlogiston with an earthy base; and I said
that, had there been any phlogiston in _water_, I should have concluded,
that there had been no conducting power in nature, but in consequence of
an union of this principle with some base; for while metals have
phlogiston they conduct electricity, but when they are deprived of it
they conduct no longer. Now the affinity which I have observed between
phlogiston and water leads me to conclude that water, in its natural
state, does contain some portion of phlogiston; and according to the
hypothesis just now mentioned they must be intimately united, because
water is not inflammable.

I think, therefore, that after this state of hesitation and suspence, I
may venture to lay it down a