It's clear in both of the quotes that you presented that they were relying on the ability of the populace to control themselves (with the help of their religion).
The quotes do not sanction enforcement of that religion by the government, which is what that convoluted essay posted by TailGunner Joe was getting at (from what I could decipher).
LQ
I was sort of startled by Matchett-Pi's use of those 2 quotes for a theocracy myself, since I frequently use them as arguments for individual freedom and personal liberty.
### I didn't decipher the idea of a "theocracy" from what he posted, at all. "I was sort of startled by Matchett-Pi's use of those 2 quotes for a theocracy myself, since I frequently use them as arguments for individual freedom and personal liberty." ~ SamCree
### I think you both should see #83. Especially this part: "I say, then, neither pope, nor bishop, nor any man whatever has the right of making one syllable binding on A CHRISTIAN MAN, unless it be done with his own consent."
Whatever is done otherwise is done in the spirit of tyranny...I cry aloud on behalf of liberty and conscience, and I proclaim with confidence that no kind of law can with any justice be imposed ON CHRISTIANS, except so far as they themselves will; for __WE__ ARE FREE FROM ALL."
America's Founding Fathers were overwhelmingly Calvinist Christians believing in INTERNAL (self) restraint. (Self-controlled / LAW ABIDING) ("The Constitution is inadequate for any other peoples")
The lawless must be restrained / controlled externally.
The lawless break the law of love which is "do no harm to your neighbor". "Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is is the fulfillment of the law." [Rom.13:10]
Our rule of law is based on the law of love. It never changes.