[ 5 28 1 
length ? which I have often feen. Now fome of 
thefe clouds coalefcing in -their defcent, and the drop? - 
increafing in their magnitude, there is a vafl body of 
this fire colledted more than what would naturally 
adhere to thofe drops and their furfaces ; which being 
render’d more adtive in its vibrations, by the heat of 
the lower part of the atmofphere, the lphere of its 
affedtions (pardon the word, for I have no other) is 
alfo increas’d in proportion to the body of fire, which 
enables it to fly off to clouds, not fo much impreg- 
nated, at a confiderable diftance, with that violent 
crack fo much taken notice of ; tho’ it is far from 
being the moft wonderful of its effedts ; the dire in- 
fluence of which we often happily efcape, by this 
body’s being diflipated by the heat of the lower at- 
mofphere, before it comes within the fphere of its 
affiedtion for bodies on the furface of the earth. There 
is a fubfequent rumbling noife heard after the firft 
crack or cracks of thunder, (for this fire does not all 
break off from one point) which has been taken no- 
tice of, and oddly accounted for ; but I think it nei- 
ther is nor can be more than echo’s from adjacent 
clouds, which at this time are generally denfe enough 
for that purpofe ; and the noife growing fainter* in 
proportion to the times of its being return’d, I think 
lufficiently proves it. 
As to the fubtil effedts of thunder, I fhall leave 
you to compare them with thofe of eledtricity, only 
allowing for the different force of fire, which is fo 
much greater in thunder than can pofiibly be pro- 
cured from artificial experiments ; and I believe, that 
the analogy will plainly appear. I fhall only hint, 
that, where one body has been injured by thunder $ 
