I think this hearkens back to a little thought-about doctrine called “The Right of Kings” in which it was declared the king can hold his subjects accountable for certain crimes – which he can commit and not be held accountable. And that is the “Right of the King”. A doctrine which was often promoted and defended by the Reformed members of the king’s court.
They reasoned the king derived this “Right” directly from the THEOS.
So it logically follows in their minds – if the THEOS extends this “Right” to the king – then it must be a “Right” the THEOS himself enjoys.
God is Open 
Good one Christopher!
I think this hearkens back to a little thought-about doctrine called “The Right of Kings” in which it was declared the king can hold his subjects accountable for certain crimes – which he can commit and not be held accountable. And that is the “Right of the King”. A doctrine which was often promoted and defended by the Reformed members of the king’s court.
They reasoned the king derived this “Right” directly from the THEOS.
So it logically follows in their minds – if the THEOS extends this “Right” to the king – then it must be a “Right” the THEOS himself enjoys.