One comment

  1. 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.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s