GOWER. And include, if I mistake not, enthusiasts, with their visions; pretended prophets, with their claim of inspiration; wonder-workers, trusting to the divine power resident in their theurgic formulas; and the philosophers who believe themselves organs of the world-soul, and their systems an evolution of Deity. ATHERTON. Yes, so far; but I do not profess to give any definition altogether adequate. Speaking of _Christian_ mysticism, I should describe it generally as the exaggeration of that aspect of Christianity which is presented to us by St. John. GOWER. That answer provokes another question. How should you characterize John’s peculiar presentation of the Gospel? ATHERTON. I refer chiefly to that admixture of the contemplative temperament and the ardent, by which he is personally distinguished,—the opposition so manifest in his epistles to all religion of mere speculative opinion or outward usage,—the concentration of Christianity, as it were, upon the inward life derived from union with Christ. This would seem to be the province of Christian truth especially occupied by the beloved disciple, and this is the province which mysticism has in so many ways usurped. GOWER. Truly that unction from the Holy One, of which John speaks, has found some strange claimants! WILLOUGHBY. Thus much I think is evident from our enquiry—that mysticism, true to its derivation as denoting a _hidden_ knowledge, faculty, or life (the exclusive privilege of sage, adept, or recluse), presents itself, in all its phases, as more or less the religion of internal as opposed to external revelation,—of heated feeling, sickly sentiment, or lawless imagination, as opposed to that reasonable belief in which the intellect and the heart, the inward witness and the outward, are alike engaged. Note to page 21.