feeling in the matter. If we allow this as a gauge by which to measure, it
is not difficult to place the Freudians.

We must not overlook the immense opportunity for suggestion in the work of
psychoanalysis, both on the subject and the one who is in the work. The
Freudians vehemently deny that any of the results of dream analysis are
suggested into the mind of the dreamer, but the evidences are all on the
other side. Freud, in referring to psychoanalysis of hysterical patients,
says, "It is not possible to press upon the patient things which he
apparently does not know, or to influence the results of the analysis by
exciting his expectations." Such an attitude is fatal when it comes to a
question of accurate work. And no less important is the self-suggestion
practiced by the Freudians. When we read of Freud's long struggle in an
attempt to find something which he felt surely was to be found, we see that
he had abundant opportunity to acquire almost an obsession. The long years
since, which he has spent in analyzing dreams and making them all come out
right some way, would serve to more firmly ground his conviction, and the
same is true of his disciples. Put a man to drawing square moons for ten
years, and at the end of the time he will swear that the moon is square.

A large portion of the scientific world seems to have gone mad over the term
"psychoanalysis." But this kind of work has been done by all peoples and
times under different names. There can be no objection to such an analysis
of a dream if it is done by the right person. The dream may be used to aid
the dreamer in finding out his own life, it is true, and when we understand
psychoanalysis as this process, and only this, it is not objectionable. But
if such is the case there is no need of all the mechanism and symbolism. The
preacher who uses the Old Testament stories of the wars with the Philistines
to illustrate a moral struggle is not to be criticised; but if he maintains
that they were written for that purpose, we should hardly feel inclined to