400 LAW AND FREEDOM IN HISTORY

Subconscious in the divinely inspired accents of a Dante and a Deutero-
Isaiah, we may venture on to believe that Love is also the God who has
created the tentacles of the squid and the teeth of the whale-shark. 'For
the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of
Him who hath subjected the same in hope.'1

In logic, this is evidently a harder saying than Marcion's creatorem
ant ignorasse out noluisse aut potentem non esse;2 but in reality, as
registered in the full gamut of our human experience, Marcion's vindica-
tion of God's love at the cost of denying His unity is no less evidently
wider of the mark than Irenaeus's vindication of the identity of God the
Almighty Creator with God the All-loving Redeemer at the cost of
identifying with one another two epiphanies of the Godhead which are
logically and morally irreconcilable from a human standpoint. And
experience's testimony to the truth of a logical and moral paradox is
strikingly vindicated by the findings of a science which cannot be
suspected of having gone out of its way in order to ratify an Irenaean
system of Christian theology. The travail of striving to reconcile two-
irreconcilable epiphanies of God, which torments the consciousness of
the adult saint and scholar, is declared by at least one school of post-
Modem Western psychological research to have already tormented a
Subconscious Psyche in an antecedent struggle through which the future
saint and scholar's moral personality has been originally acquired at a
stage of early infancy in which God's future place in the Soul's universe
has been occupied by the infant child's Mother.

'As the baby begins . . . early in the . . . second year of post-natal life
... to draw a distinction between itself and outer reality, it is the Mother3
who conies to represent the external world and to mediate its impacts on
the child. But she dawns upon its growing consciousness under two
opposite aspects. She is the child's chief object of love, and its fountain-
head of satisfaction, security, and peace. But she is also Authority, the
chief source of power mysteriously set over the child and arbitrarily
thwarting some of the impulses along whose paths its new life quests out-
wards. The frustration of infantile impulse generates anger, hate, and
destructive wishes—what the psychologists generally style aggression—
directed against the thwarting authority. But this hated Authority is also
the loved Mother. The infant is thus faced with the primal conflict. Two
irreconcilable sets of impulses are directed towards the same object, and
that object is the centre of its surrounding universe.'4

Thus, according to one psychological theory, the conscious moral con-
flict of maturity is subconsciously anticipated in early infancy; and, in
the infantile, as in the adult, struggle, a spiritual victory exacts its
spiritual price. 'Primitive Love conquers Primitive Hate by saddling it
with the burden of primal guilt';5 and Psychology thus endorses

1 Rom. viii. 20.

2 Marcion as interpreted by Tertullian in his Adversus Marcionem, Book IV, chap. 41
(see Hamack, op. cit., p. 05).

3 'And/or any efficient mother-substitute, such as a nurse who takes over the care of the
baby, or a large part of it.*

* Huxley, J.: Evolutionary Ethics, the Romanes Lecture, 1943, reprinted in Huxley,
T. H. and J.: Evolution and Ethics, i8g3-ig43 (London 1947, Pilot Press), p. 107.
5 Ibid., p. no.