How to, theoretically and effectively interpret the relationship between the emperor and the mandarins in the context of Chinese history is for sure a very important academic subject, which points to the legitimation of the emperor’s sovereignty, namely the fact that the emperor obtained and sustained his sovereignty legitimately according to a kind of normativity. The normativity is defined as the order of Li & Fa, or discipline rite and laworder in English. Conflicts between the emperor and mandarins would break out when Li & Fa is in disorder. The legitimation of sovereignty has to be proved appropriate, or need a self-reference, namely, the internal justification. In the context of Chinese history, sovereignty legitimation could be justified by claiming it as the ″mandate of god″ or as conformed to the ″expectations of the people″. More specifically, such claims could be classified into mysterious resources (god’s will or god’s order), blood line, (the emperor’s) good morality, or benefiting to his people, etc. These specific principles were interwoven with each other, and thus combined as a whole. Especially since the Song Dynasties, when the Confucians and the intellectual officials were virtually the same group of people, they tend to think that they were authorized to interpret Li & Fa order, so that they could get involved in gaming the emperor. To some degree, the mandarins became an important counter-balance in this political system or institution. Moreover, as a primary ideology, Li & Fa order was always highly ambiguous, leaving plenty of room for diverse interpretations. The ambiguity was the very battlefield for different political forces. A comparison between the sovereignty in ancient China and ″The King’s Two Bodies″ (as what Ernst Kantorowicz said) or the monarchy in the Middle Ages of Europe could be helpful for a better understanding of the so-called Li & Fa order. What should be stated ahead is that even though the disenchantment was halfway done in Chinese history, the comparison between Confucianism and Catholic doctrines, and that between Confucians and Catholic priests in terms of sovereignty legitimation is still valid. Through the comparative study we could find that there is a sort of ″homogeneity″ or similarity between the two. From the viewpoint of Li & Fa order, we could understand better in the context of Chinese history the legitimation of sovereignty and the relationship between the emperor and mandarins. After the disenchantment (as defined by Max Weber), even though this traditional way of legitimizing sovereignty had left some prints, it could no longer be practiced in the contemporary world. The modern sovereignty legitimacy is acquired in a more reasonable, secularized and innate manner instead of seeking to any heteronomous resources other than its self-ustification, such as natural or super-natural forces or Li & Fa. This article, by discussing the Li & Fa order in Chinese history, aims to prove that although Li & Fa order had restricted the sovereignty and forced it to restrain itself by making the best of political and moral justifications after its disenchantment, though incomplete, such a significance of Li & Fa order, instead of being overrated, proposes an understanding in a new perspective of the relationship between the emperor and mandarins in the context of Chinese history.