third part; in which occur, almost as if by accident, the words: 
‘‘Therefore do ail things obey my word.” Yet in the fourth part, 
which begins: “Therefore do thou corne forth unto me”, it is not 
really the magician who is addressing the God; it is the God 
who hears the far-off utterance of the magician. If this invocation 
has been correctly performed, the words of the fourth part will 
Sound distant and strange. It is surprising that a dummy (so the 
magus now appears to Himself) should be able to speak! 
The Egyptian Gods are so complété in their nature, so perfectly 
spiritual and yet so perfectly material, that this one invocation is 
sufficient. The God bethinks him that the spirit of Mercury 
should now appear to the magician; and it is so. This Egyptian 
formula is therefore to be preferred to the Hierarchical formula 
of the Hebrews with its tedious prayers, conjurations, and curses. 
It will be noted, however, that in this invocation of Thoth which 
we hâve summârized, there is another formula contained, the 
Reverberating or Reciprocating formula, which may be called the 
formula of Horus and Harpocrates. The magician addresses the 
God with an active projection of nis will, and then becomes passive 
while the God addresses the Universe. In the fourth part he 
remains silent, listening, to the prayer which arises therefrom. 
The formula of this invocation of Thoth may also be classed 
under Tetragrammaton. The first part is fire, the eager prayer 
of the magician, the second water, in which the magician°listens to, 
or catches the reflection of, the god. The third part is air, the 
marriage of fire and water; the god and the man hâve become 
one; while the fourth part corresponds to earth, the condensa¬ 
tion 01 matenalization of those three highcr principles. 
With regard to the Hebrew formulae, it is doubtful whether 
inost magicians who use them hâve ever properly grasped the 
principles underlying the method of identity. No passage which 
împlies it occurs to mind, and the extant ntuais certainly give no 
hmt of such a conception, or of any but the most personal and 
material views of the nature of things. They seem to hâve 
thought that there was an Archangel named Ratziel in exactly the 
same sense as there was a statesman named Richelieu, an 
individual being living in a definite place. Eté had possibly 
certain powers of a somewhat metaphysical order—he might be 
— 19 —