Since Jason Stellman is out of commission with his quotation identifications, I offer the afflicted a small remedy. The following is a quotation from a text that condemns the separation of church and state, along with more general efforts to differentiate between religion and secular affairs.
But it is not with its own members alone that the Church must come to an amicable arrangement – besides its relations with those within, it has others outside. The Church does not occupy the world all by itself; there are other societies in the world, with which it must necessarily have contact and relations. The rights and duties of the Church towards civil societies must, therefore, be determined, and determined, of course, by its own nature as it has been already described. The rules to be applied in this matter are those which have been laid down for science and faith, though in the latter case the question is one of objects while here we have one of ends. In the same way, then, as faith and science are strangers to each other by reason of the diversity of their objects, Church and State are strangers by reason of the diversity of their ends, that of the Church being spiritual while that of the State is temporal. Formerly it was possible to subordinate the temporal to the spiritual and to speak of some questions as mixed, allowing to the Church the position of queen and mistress in all such, because the Church was then regarded as having been instituted immediately by God as the author of the supernatural order. But his doctrine is today repudiated alike by philosophy and history. The State must, therefore, be separated from the Church, and the [believer] from the citizen. Every [Christian], from the fact that he is also a citizen, has the right and the duty to work for the common good in the way he thinks best, without troubling himself about the authority of the Church, without paying any heed to its wishes, its counsels, its orders – nay, even in spite of its reprimands. To trace out and prescribe for the citizen any line of conduct, on any pretext whatsoever, is to be guilty of an abuse of ecclesiastical authority, against which one is bound to act with all one’s might.
Is this the condemnation of a theonomist, a neo-Calvinist, a fundamentalist, or a Roman Catholic? How can you tell the difference?
Old Life 
This is EXACTLY the position the Irish bishops felt they were cornered by, when, because of the bishops own internal policy of mandatory reporting of child sex abuse cases to the civil authority they drew a critical response from the Vatican in a letter admonishing the the bishops for not following canon law strictures by their mandatory reporting to the magistrate. The Vatican denies. But the Irish gov. closed its embassy to the Vatican and the Irish bishops have the letter. The Vatican said the bishops misunderstood the intent of the letter. That’s a tough sell.
LikeLike
How can you tell? By reason of the peculiar phrasing of “by reason of the diversity of”, I choose RC, and by reason of the diversity of repetition (objects vs ends), I guess GKC in particular.
But what id the difference (diversity?) between an object and and end? Was this discussed in the preceding context?
LikeLike
I’ll guess RC based on this line: But his doctrine is today repudiated alike by philosophy and history.
I’m probably wrong. 🙂
LikeLike
Oops, misread the qn. It is written by an RC based on that line.
LikeLike
“But his doctrine is today repudiated alike by philosophy and history.”
How can this be if the claims of Rome are so obviously reasonable as formulated in the motives of credibility?
LikeLike
Too well written for fundamentalist. Not enough hyperventilation and exclamation points for theonomist. To cognizant of the authority of the church to be neo-Cal. By process of elimination…
LikeLike
That quote has a very Bryan Crossity flavor to it.
LikeLike
That quote has a very Bryan Crossity flavor to it.
Yup, you could read it 50 times and not remember much of anything from it, but it seems as if there is a decent argument in there…
LikeLike
I guess GKC in particular.
No….. GKC writes very practically, with wit and a point to all of it.
LikeLike
I’m going with Kuyper, just to put some skin in the game.
LikeLike
I’m putting my money down on my man The, Viking…
LikeLike
… Not. 😉
LikeLike
“faith and science are strangers”
Is that a hint?
LikeLike
Cheating now…impatient maybe…it’s Pius X, 1907.
LikeLike
We all looked by now, no need to spill the beans!
LikeLike
Imagine Machen’s chief 21st century devotee being called a Modernist. Am I reading it correctly? Pius is critiquing the Modernist view, which separates church and state, science and faith, etc. Darryl seems to commending to us the Modernist view.
LikeLike