FREEDOM THAT IS THE LAW OF GOD 401
the Irenaean anti-Marcionite Christian finding that Love and Hate,
Righteousness and Sinfulness, are indissolubly linked with one another
through the chain of Creation.

'Without a mother, no strong love focussed on a personal object; with-
out such love, no conflict of irreconcilable impulses; without such conflict,
no guilt; and, without such guilt, no effective moral sense.*1

A latter-day Western psychology's discovery, in an infantile Sub-
conscious Psyche, of two irreconcilable impressions of one Mother, who
represents Authority as well as Love in her own indivisible person,
testifies to the veracity of Irenaeus's intuition that the apparent co-
existence of two gods, morally antithetical to one another, must be, not
a faithful reflection of the divine reality, but a mirage reflecting merely
a diffraction of the unitary image of the One True God in the prismatic
lens of an imperfect human spiritual vision.2 God the Lover and
Redeemer of souls must, in spite of Marcionic appearances to the con-
trary, be identical, in an ineffable reality, with God the Creator of sub-
conscious terrestrial life, as well as with God the Creator of a material
cosmos whose mathematical perfection is not marred by any moral bar
sinister on the inanimate level. This paradoxical truth that Love is
inseparable from the Almighty Power put forth in Creation is visually
portrayed in Medieval Western Christian mappae mundi in which the
latent figure of Christ Crucified holds together and sustains the World;
and this image does not become less true to reality if we replace the
* Greek cross on which the seventeenth-century Western mathematicians
hung their analysis of a static universe by the Saint Andrew's cross,
embodied in the three-dimensional form of an hour-glass, on which a
twentieth-century Western mathematical physicist had learnt to hang
his analysis of a universe travelling through Space-Time.

For finite human minds, it is morally inexplicable that God the Creator
of Life on Earth should have anticipated the gait of His creature Homo
Faber by feeling his way gradatim et pedetemptim. They can understand
why Man should have had to serve an apprenticeship in flaking flints in
order to learn how to build an atomic pile; but why did an Almighty
God who is Love and Creativity in one not avail Himself of His power to
create a Buddha and a Saint Francis de toutespieces} Why did He elect
to approach the creation of these spiritual masterpieces of His by the
slow, laborious, clumsy, and apparently maleficent method of creating

1 Ibid., p. no.

z The psychological process by which the Visio Beattfica is distorted in a sinful soul's
sight is perhaps adumbrated in the psychologists' account of the distortion of the image
of a child's parents in the sight of the refractory infant child.

*It is characteristic of this first beginning of our ethical mechanism that it is in many
respects unrealistic. The parents have to exercise control over the child, and in so doing
will be strict, or even harsh, and will certainly sometimes appear cruel. But to their
actual and real strictness is added an unreal quota and quality of unpleasantness in the
shape of the child's own thwarted aggressiveness. Thus the dialectic of growth succeeds
in intro-jecting a parent-figure very different from the real parent, since it is "endowed
with all the crude and primitive aggressiveness of the child himself. In this way, it would
appear, does the super-ego acquire its more alarming and barbaric features", and this is
why the semi-conscious or unconscious core of the super-ego (which may persist even
throughout life) is so harsh and so unnecessarily severe, calling all the time upon the
Self to make atonement for its load of primal guilt* (Huxley, J.: 'Conclusions', in
Huxley, T. H. and J., op. cit., p. 206. Cp, p. 195).