Are kings bound by Biblical law?
The monarch of England is supposed to be the defender of the faith, and takes a oath to do just that, upon thier corronation. Is he/she bound by thier oath, and by the law of the land, to obey that law and God's law, which they claim is the source of thier power?
That being the premis by which I pose this question, are thay not violating that law on the occasion that they act contrary to what scripture dictates as reason and prudent behavior?
Answer:
The Sovereign has to be a communicant member of the Church of England, yet it is a notorious fact that many monarchs in the past have had a lifestyle which would cause most practising Anglicans to stay away from the communion rail. Looking at the oath, it is basically one in which the Monarch undertakes to protect the Protestant faith. The Archbishop, in administering the Coronation Oath, first asks the Monarch: "Is your Majesty willing to take the Oath?" The Monarch answering: "I am willing", the Archbishop then asks the Monarch three questions, demanding of him first, if he will solemnly promise and swear to govern his people according to the laws and customs of the Constitution; secondly, if he will do his best to cause law and justice, in mercy, to be executed in all his judgements; thirdly, if he will to the utmost of his power maintain the Laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel and the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law, and also maintain and preserve the Church of England and the rights and privileges of the bishops and clergy and the Churches committed to their charge.
To each of these questions, the Monarch gives his solemn assent, and then rising out of his chair he goes to the Altar, attended by two Bishops and the Lord Great Chamberlain, the Sword of State being carried before him. There he makes his Oath in the sight of all the people, laying his right hand upon the Holy Gospel in the Great Bible and says: "The things which I have here before promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God." Then the Monarch kisses the Book and signs the Oath. In this solemn manner the Monarch takes the Coronation Oath to uphold "the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law".
Also on the accession each Monarch takes the Accession Oath before the Privy Council as follows: "I do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne of my Realm, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to the law."
Looking at the substance of this oath, it is not an undertaking to lead the life of a true, Bible believing Christian so much as to protect the status quo as far as the Established Church (and the Presbyterian Church, for which the Sovereign takes a separate oath) are concerned. Our present Monarch is a committed Christian, but she probably has her faults along with the rest of us and probably makes mistakes. She does not undertake to be perfect, simply to do her best.
As Lord Coke pronounced in Doctor Bonham's case, "Rex non debet esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege, quia lex facit regem."
Of course, King James threatened Coke with the terrible penalty for suggesting that there were such limits on the King his authority, whereupon Coke declared that better men than he had died to establish that the King's power ends where a man's thoughts begin. The King backed off, largely because the law lords reminded him that he had no right by birth to be King of England, and what Parliament had granted, it could as readily abolish.
Of course, it was James' successor who decided to test the right of Parliament to abridge the King. He lost. Coke won. Though you lot have never gone so far as to allow courts to declare acts of Parliament to be unconstitutional, which ultimately is a good thing since you don't have a written constitution. Ultimately, the King who acts contrary to natural law forfeits any right to reign.
It was widely believed that kings had a divine right to rule, and that God was ruling through them. This is why they often used the "royal we"-- by saying "we" instead of "I" they meant "myself and God."
Religious authorities, however, were constantly berating kings & noblemen for violating biblical law; clearly they thought that Kings were bound by biblical laws to almost the same extent as common people.
No i would not think so
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Questions and Answers: