Defining the Monarchy of the Father

The monarchy of the Father (MOTF) is a doctrine of Trinitarian theology that identifies the Father's unique, causal primacy in the Trinitarian taxis. This primacy puts the Father as the primordial source, cause, font, beginning of the entire Godhead; it is from the Father that the other two persons of the Trinity - the Son and Spirit - ultimately receive their being. The implication of this primacy is a causal subordination of the Son and Spirit in relation to the Father. This sort of subordinationism is not to be confused with an ontological subordinationism - a heresy that considers the Son and/or Spirit to be of lesser substance then the Father (i.e., not homoousion with the Father) - in the Trinity. The MOTF does not entail this heresy because causal subordination pertains to the modes of origin of the persons, not the one, perfect divine substance of which all three persons share. Indeed, it is this one, perfect divine essence that the Son and Spirit have by virtue of ultimately receiving it from the Father.

Simply, the MOTF is defined as: the Father is the primordial causal source and beginning from which the entire Godhead eternally subsists and owes its being. 

This doctrine is present in the common witness of the Church Fathers - as we shall see - and is affirmed by our Lord Himself when he tells the disciples, Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I (John 14:28). Furthermore, the doctrine is affirmed by both sides of the Great Schism of East and West and through the Protestant Reformation - as we shall also see - revealing its centrality to Trinitarian theology.

Fathers of the Church

We shall examine the following patristic florilegium to identify the key elements of the MOTF doctrine described above: 

And hence it is that the Son too says not, 'My Father is better than I John 14:28,' lest we should conceive Him to be foreign to His Nature, but 'greater,' not indeed in greatness, nor in time, but because of His generation from the Father Himself, nay, in saying 'greater' He again shows that He is proper to His essence. - Athanasius, Discourse 1 Against the Arians, Chapter 13

It is the Father to Whom all existence owes its origin. In Christ and through Christ He is the source of all. In contrast to all else He is self-existent. He does not draw His being from without, but possesses it from Himself and in Himself….Who, indeed, would deny that the Father is the greater; the Unbegotten greater than the Begotten, the Father than the Son, the Sender than the Sent, He that wills than He that obeys? He Himself shall be His own witness:— The Father is greater than I. It is a fact which we must recognize, but we must take heed lest with unskilled thinkers the majesty of the Father should obscure the glory of the Son. - Hillary of Poitiers, De Trinitate, Book 2.6, 3.12

As staunch defenders of Nicene orthodoxy, Athanasius and Hillary are powerful witnesses to the orthodox understanding of our Lord's words in John 14:28. The difference in "greatness" between the Father and Son does not pertain to the substance, but causal relations. It is the Father who is "unbegotten" in relation to the Son who is begotten. The Father possess His existence in a primordial way, unlike the Son who receives His existence from the Father. This primordial "unbegotteness" is a property of the Father alone:

We do not speak of the Holy Ghost as unbegotten, for we recognize one Unbegotten and one Origin of all things, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: nor do we speak of the Holy Ghost as begotten, for by the tradition of the faith we have been taught one Only-begotten: the Spirit of truth we have been taught to proceed from the Father, and we confess Him to be of God without creation. - Basil of Caesarea, Letter 125

The Son is second to the Father in rank because he is from him. He is second to the Father in dignity because the Father is the principle and cause by virtue of which he is the Son's Father and because we approach and access the God and Father through the Son. Even so, the Son is not second in nature, since there is one divinity in both of them. - Basil of Caesarea, Against Eunomius, Book 3.1

In both of these quotes, Basil explicitly affirms the same thing affirmed by Athanasius and Hillary: causality, not substance, is the differentiating principle of superiority in the Trinity. It is the Father's ultimacy as the "one Origin of all things", "the principle and cause", that forms the MOTF doctrine. Nevertheless, there is no difference in nature because "there is one divinity" all three divine persons share. 

Now, the name of that which has no beginning is the Father, and of the Beginning the Son, and of that which is with the Beginning, the Holy Ghost, and the three have one Nature — God. And the union is the Father from Whom and to Whom the order of Persons runs its course, not so as to be confounded, but so as to be possessed, without distinction of time, of will, or of power. For these things in our case produce a plurality of individuals, since each of them is separate both from every other quality, and from every other individual possession of the same quality. But to those who have a simple nature, and whose essence is the same, the term One belongs in its highest sense. - Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 42

The Father is Father, and is Unoriginate, for He is of no one; the Son is Son, and is not unoriginate, for He is of the Father. But if you take the word Origin in a temporal sense, He too is Unoriginate, for He is the Maker of Time, and is not subject to Time. - Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 39

And if, when we admit that in respect of being the Cause the Father is greater than the Son, they should assume the premise that He is the Cause by Nature, and then deduce the conclusion that He is greater by Nature also, it is difficult to say whether they mislead most themselves or those with whom they are arguing…I think the fallacy here is the arguing from a conditioned to an unconditioned use of a term, to use the technical expression of the logicians. For while we assign this word Greater to His Nature viewed as a Cause, they infer it of His Nature viewed in itself. - Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 29

Gregory of Nazianzus too communicates the same truth as the rest of the chorus cited: the Father is the uniquely causal source in the Trinity by virtue of Him being from no other. Instead, He exists in and of Himself. Gregory also points out an important qualification when discussing causality within the Godhead: it lacks any notion of temporality or change. Therefore, there is no moment when the Son (or Spirit) was not. Instead, causality within God is atemporal and simply recognizes who lacks existential derivation (the Father) and who has it (the Son and Spirit). 

…the Son owes to the Father that which He is, — thereby also certainly owing this in particular to the Father, to wit, that He is equal to the same Father, or that He is His Peer, whereas the Father owes whatsoever He is to no one. - Augustine of Hippo, On Faith and the Creed

That then which the Lord says —Whom I will send unto you from the Father, — shows the Spirit to be both of the Father and of the Son; because, also, when He had said, Whom the Father will send, He added also, in my name. Yet He did not say, Whom the Father will send from me, as He said, Whom I will send unto you from the Father,— showing, namely, that the Father is the beginning of the whole divinity, or if it is better so expressed, deity. He, therefore, who proceeds from the Father and from the Son, is referred back to Him from whom the Son was born. - Augustine of Hippo, On the Trinity, Book 4

Like the other fathers, Augustine taught the MOTF doctrine explicitly. He recognizes the Father as the unique, primordial source of the Godhead. It is interesting to note that despite this consistency, Augustine interpreted our Lord's words in John 14:28 differently from the rest of the fathers quoted. [1] He identifies the Son's human nature - taking on the form of a servant (Phil 2:7) - as the basis of our Lord's statement. Despite the immediate difference, Augustine seeks to safeguard the same thing the other fathers explicitly seek to safeguard as well: that despite this causal subordination, there is no ontological subordination insofar as it is the Son's divine nature that makes him consubstantial with to the Father. 

(We believe) in one Father, the beginning, and cause of all: begotten of no one: without cause or generation, alone subsisting: creator of all: but Father of one only by nature, His Only-begotten Son and our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, and Producer of the most Holy Spirit…one must recognise that the word ἀγένητον with only one 'ν ' signifies uncreate or not having been made, while ἀγέννητον written with double 'ν ' means unbegotten. According to the first significance essence differs from essence: for one essence is uncreate, or ἀγένητον with one 'ν,' and another is create or γενητή . But in the second significance there is no difference between essence and essence. For the first subsistence of all kinds of living creatures is ἀγέννητος but not ἀγένητος. For they were created by the Creator, being brought into being by His Word, but they were not begotten, for there was no pre-existing form like themselves from which they might have been born…So then in the first sense of the word the three absolutely divine subsistences of the Holy Godhead agree: for they exist as one in essence and uncreate. But with the second signification it is quite otherwise. For the Father alone is ingenerate, no other subsistence having given Him being. But if we say that the Father is the origin of the Son and greater than the Son, we do not suggest any precedence in time or superiority in nature of the Father over the Son John 14:28 (for through His agency He made the ages ), or superiority in any other respect save causation. And we mean by this, that the Son is begotten of the Father and not the Father of the Son, and that the Father naturally is the cause of the Son: just as we say in the same way not that fire proceeds from light, but rather light from fire. So then, whenever we hear it said that the Father is the origin of the Son and greater than the Son, let us understand it to mean in respect of causation. All then that the Son and the Spirit have is from the Father, even their very being: and unless the Father is, neither the Son nor the Spirit is. And unless the Father possesses a certain attribute, neither the Son nor the Spirit possesses it: and through the Father, that is, because of the Father's existence, the Son and the Spirit exist, and through the Father, that is, because of the Father having the qualities, the Son and the Spirit have all their qualities, those of being unbegotten, and of birth and of procession being excepted. For in these hypostatic or personal properties alone do the three holy subsistences differ from each other, being indivisibly divided not by essence but by the distinguishing mark of their proper and peculiar subsistence. - John of Damascus, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (Book I), Excerpts from Chapter 8

Closing out the pre-schism patristic era, John Damascene, the synthesizer of Greek patristic thought captures all the elements described in the previous fathers cited. Reconciling the consubstantial equality of the Trinity while recognizing that the Father is the ultimate source of the Trinity. 

Post-Schism Sources 

Following the Great Schism, we see the MOTF explicitly affirmed by both halves of Christendom. For those familiar with the filioque controversy - arguably the primary theological issue causing the schism - it is no surprise that the Eastern side of this schism continued to affirmed the MOTF. Indeed, it was (and is) the Greek concern over how the filioque potentially undermines the MOTF that was central to the debate. However, despite this concern, the West repeatedly affirmed this doctrine even through the Protestant Reformation. This point is significant because it clearly establishes 1) the MOTF was not unique to Eastern theology and 2) the West - both Catholic and Protestant - believed one could coherently affirm the MOTF and the filioque, as we shall see: 

The Father is without beginning, not only as being outside time, but also as being in every way without cause. He alone is the cause, root and source of the Godhead beheld in the Son and the Holy Spirit; He alone is the primary cause of what has come into being; He is not the Creator alone, but the sole Father of the one Son and the sole Originator of the one Holy Spirit. He always is, and is always the Father, and always the sole Father and Originator, greater than the Son and the Spirit, but only as cause; in all other respects He is the same as Them and equal in honor. - Gregory Palamas, The Orthodox Confession of Faith Set Forth By The Most Reverened Metropolitan of Thessalonica 

In De Trinitate 4 Augustine says, “The Father is the principle of the whole divinity (deitas).” Among the Greeks it is customary to say that the Son and the Holy Spirit are such that they are begun (principari). However, this is not common usage among our doctors. For even though we attribute a certain authorship (auctoritas) to the Father in virtue of His being a principle, nonetheless, in order to avoid an occasion of error, we do not in any way attribute subordination or inferiority to the Son or the Holy Spirit. As Hilary puts it in De Trinitate 9, “The Father is the greater because of the honor attached to giving, but the Son is not the lesser in virtue of being the one to whom the gift is given". - Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, First Part, Question 33, Article 1

Despite differences in emphasis and linguistic employment, both Palamas and Aquinas - each core representatives for Orthodoxy and Catholicism respectively - affirm the MOTF. They each identify the Father as the unique beginning in the Godhead and are well aware of the patristic and biblical basis behind this doctrine. Both also clearly state that despite this unique role of the Father in the Trinity, it in no away infringes on their substantial equality. As stated above, the West affirmed the MOTF and filioque together.

At the Council of Florence it was said by the Latin delegation: 

For even we ourselves would say that the Son is not the primary cause of the Spirit: we assert one cause of the Son and the Spirit, the Father, the one according to generation and the other according to procession; but in order to signify the communion and the equality of the essence we also assert the procession through the Son and clearly confess the inseparability of the substance. For the Son is substantially the Son of the Father and the Holy Spirit substantially is of the Father and the Son. Maximus states that the pronouncements of the holy Roman fathers do not say otherwise, not only Augustine, Jerome, and Ambrose but the rest whose books manifestly assert the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son. - A. Edward Siecienski, The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy, page 165 (quote from "Joseph Gill, Acta graece, 412.)

 And within the dogmatic definition at Florence: 

The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. - Council of Florence, Session 6, Definition of Faith 

These quotes provide a clear, official position of what the late medieval Latins believed about the MOTF and their attempt to harmonize it with the filioque. Almost 100 years later, the Protestant Reformers - also committed to the filioque - would affirm the MOTF: 

The distinction of the Father, as we have heard, is this, that He derived His deity from no one, but gave it from eternity, through the eternal birth, to the Son. Therefore the Son is God and Creator, just like the Father, but the Son derived all of this from the Father, and not, in turn, the Father from the Son. The Father does not owe the fact that He is God and Creator to the Son, but the Son owes the fact that He is God and Creator to the Father. And the fact that Father and Son are God and Creator they do not owe to the Holy Spirit; but the Holy Spirit owes the fact that He is God and Creator to the Father and the Son. Thus the words ‘God Almighty, Creator’ are found [in the Creed] as attributes of the Father and not of the Son and of the Holy Spirit to mark the distinction of the Father from the Son and the Holy Spirit in the Godhead, again, the distinction of the Son from the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the distinction of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son; namely, that the Father is the source, or the fountainhead (if we may use that term as the fathers do) of the Godhead, that the Son derives it from Him and that the Holy Spirit derives it from Him and the Son, and not vice versa. - A. Edward Siecienski, The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy, page 174 (quote from "Martin Luther, 'Treatise on the Last Words of David,' Eng. trans.: Jaroslav Pelikan, ed., Luther's Works 15 [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1972], 309-310)

These Holy Scriptures teach us that in this one sole and simple divine essence, whom we have confessed, there are three Persons:  the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.  The Father, first cause, principle, and origin of all things.  The Son, his Word and eternal wisdom.  The Holy Spirit, his virtue, power, and efficacy.  The Son begotten from eternity by the Father. The Holy Spirit proceeding eternally from them both; the three persons not confused, but distinct, and yet not separate, but of the same essence, equal in eternity and power. - John Calvin, The French Confession of Faith, Section VI

We are not denying at all whether the Father is the prime origin and source from which all things flow, while the Son and the Spirit as the cause are caused from it (the source which is the Father) according to Gregory the Theologian. But we add that this power [spirating the Spirit] is granted to the Son necessarily through the begetting...In reference also to your illustration concerning the two-directional streams arising from one overflown fountain, we place against it another similar to it which is more fitting...the sun which is the cause both of light and of illumination. Wherefore, certainly not without His innate light, but by it He illuminates the world so that the illumination will be reflected from both. In like manner, the Father is the origin and the cause of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and [the Father] is the emitter of the Spirit, not, however, without the Son who preceded the Spirit by origin. - Tubingen theologians, Second Theological Exchange: Tubingen to Constantinople, Augsburg and Constantinople

There is no question that the MOTF is consistently and explicitly affirmed by filioque proponents and opponents alike. Therefore, as it relates to the filioque, the more important and interesting question is whether the MOTF can coherently be held together with the filioque. This is a key question to which the two halves of Christendom have no agreement.