Validity and Efficacy of Sacraments in Forced Conversion and Infant Baptism
Validity and Efficacy of Sacraments in Forced Conversion and Infant Baptism
Forced conversion in Christian history and its implications for sacramental validity and efficacy in infant baptism accord to the Church Fathers
“Convert or die.” These were the options given to the Jewish people living in 14th century Spain. Initiated in Seville by the infamous Archdeacon Ferrand Martinez of Écija, who believed that he was fulfilling the will of God,1 this pogrom would later come to be known as the Massacre of 1391. Although this was not the first instance of violence exercised by legates of the Church, it was uniquely successful in its conversion efforts.2 By the middle of the 15th century, however, it became evident that many of the newly baptized secretly maintained their Jewish faith. Questions over whether or not these newly illumined were actually Christian paved the way for the Spanish Inquisition.3
COERCIVE AND COMPULSORY CONVERSION IN CHRISTIAN HISTORY
Contrary to some Orthodox Christian narratives, there is a precedent for compulsory conversion prior to the Crusades. From the time of Christian toleration under Constantine the Great (Edict of Milan, 313 A.D.) to the reign of Justinian I and his Codex Justinianus (527–565 A.D.), Christian conversion began to include certain civic benefits. But as the toleration of Christianity expanded, so did the civic and religious restrictions placed upon those practicing other religions – and those practicing Judaism specifically.4 Over time, the growing tension between the Jews and the Christians resulted in bloodshed on both sides.
At the beginning of Emperor Heraclius’ reign (610.–641 A.D.), the Jews living in Antioch murdered Patriarch Anastasios II (598–610 A.D.) further straining Christian-Jewish relations.5 The climate in the Holy City of Jerusalem was no different. Following the surrender of the city to the invading Persians (614 A.D.), the Jews sacked and plundered Christian Churches and were allowed to enact their own version of compulsory conversion upon the Christians, killing anyone who did not comply.6 Sixteen years later, in 630 A.D., Heraclius found his way to Jerusalem. Bearing the Holy Cross, which he reinstalled in the Holy City, Heraclius ordered the conversion, death, or expulsion of all of the Jews in the empire.7 Most Christians were silent about the decree. But upon witnessing its enforcement while visiting Cartagena in May of 632 A.D., Saint Maximus the Confessor wrote a letter to John Cyzicus decrying the practice and its disregard for human agency.8
A century later, in his war with the Saxons (772–804 A.D.), Charlemagne enforced a similar decree to convert the Germanic pagans. Following the desecration of Churches and the killing of clerics during Saxon rebellions of the 780s,9 Charlemagne instituted the Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae which “prescribed death to those who refused to convert to Christianity.”10 Themes of violence, retributive action, and forced conversion continued in the centuries that followed. And although many of these events were later condemned by the Papal office, it would only be a matter of time before violence would rage among Christian brethren as well.11
Unfortunate as these events were, they did raise a peculiar question: is forced baptism effective baptism?
ARE FORCED BAPTISMS EFFECTIVE BAPTISMS?
Given the historically universal Christian emphasis on freedom in salvation (sorry Calvinists :D), it is not surprising that remarks on the query of forced conversion are riddled throughout patristic literature. Saints Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Augustine of Hippo, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory the Great, Maximus the Confessor, and Bede the Venerable all note variously that the soul does not profit from compulsion nor can it receive the mystery of truth by force.12 Methods of evangelization that use fear or threats or coercion, then, were not considered lawful. Bernard of Clairvaux and Thomas Aquinas would echo these sentiments in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, respectively.13
The conclusion: human freedom is necessary in conversion. But one might ask, if freedom and will are necessary for salvation, what does this mean for infant baptism? How can the baptism of infants, who do not exercise volitional participation when they are brought to the baptismal font, be effective baptism? This is the insoluble quandary of low-Church protestants. Acknowledging the necessity of freedom in conversion, however, does not mean that the power of the sacrament is dependent upon personal conviction – such a view would lead to a version of donatism that restricts the sacramental mystery to human whim or enlightenment.
Orthodox Christians do not believe that the sacrament is dependent on any individual’s strength of faith, preciseness of “incantation,” or even exactitude of form but rather on the power of God himself. And this is why it is vital that we make a distinction between the validity and efficacy of the Sacraments.14
VALIDITY AND EFFICACY: MORE THAN AN AUGUSTINIAN DISTINCTION
Although the validity-efficacy distinction was most famously drawn out by Saint Augustine in his dispute with the donatists,15 it is also taught by Saint Fulgentius of Ruspe,16 alluded to by Saint Basil the Great’s work On the Holy Spirit, where he distinguishes between those who “receive grace” and those who are “benefited by it,”17 and confirmed by the consensus patrum in the Church’s reception of converts through Chrismation, confession of faith, or vesting (for a detailed account, see my article on (re)baptism). But what exactly does this distinction mean? What does it mean that a sacrament can be valid but not efficacious?
AN ILLUSTRATION USING THE MARITAL RELATIONSHIP
We might think of validity as static and efficacy as dynamic. If we consider salvation in terms of a marital relationship, validity would correspond to the fact that the couple is married while efficacy would correspond to the quality of their relationship. Depending on the couple’s mutual effort, or synergy, the marriage itself can be experienced as either heaven or hell. Given that the validity of their marriage is a historical fact – due to their sacramental union at a specific moment in time – its efficacy, which I will here define as its success in movement toward a desired goal, depends on the ongoing relationship.18
The same is true of the Sacrament; the grace conferred in baptism is given unreservedly by God (as fact) but its efficacy is dependent upon one’s willing participation in the life of Christ (synergy, relationship). And this participation is nothing other than our innumerable daily choices to respond or not respond to the ceaseless outpouring of God’s self-giving love. Here is where the marital analogy breaks down, because God will always hold up his end of the deal; the question is whether or not we will respond.
Perhaps we could apply this to another sacrament to provide further clarity. The Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This fact does not change regardless of who partakes. Yet, the effects of partaking can be radically different. The sacrament is valid as fact but it can lead to salvation or damnation. This is why Paul can write that it is possible to partake of the sacrament worthily or unworthily and on which account many “have fallen xsleep” (1 Corinthians 11:27, 30).
TWO INCORRECT PATHS: PELAGIANISM OR MONERGISM
Denying the distinction between validity and efficacy leads to one of two places: pelagianism or monergism. On the one hand, we fall into pelagianism, believing that our ticket to paradise exclusively depends on our actions; on the other hand, we descend into superstition, believing that God bestows salvation arbitrarily, regardless of our disposition or effort. The former explains why Protestants are allergic to any talk of man’s responsibility in working out his salvation (see Philippians 2:12); the latter, why many low-Church protestants shudder at the reality of infant baptism. Without the distinction of validity and efficacy (or point and process thinking, as my Father likes to call it – a point in time, baptism, and a process, working out our salvation with fear and trembling, Phil. 2:12), we miss the point: salvation is based in synergy, or relationship. It is God who saves but it is up to us to respond. This does not mean that salvation is earned (pelagianism). Neither does it mean that baptism in the Orthodox Church as an infant (or as an adult for that matter) automatically guarantees you a place in the Kingdom (monergism).
Interestingly, the Pharisees in the gospels vacillate between these two views: first, hearking to their good works and later to their ethnic heritage as sons of Abraham and their religious pedigree. But they were so obsessed with these facts that they missed the entire point: relationship. (As Orthodox Christians today, we would do well to keep this in mind, because so many of us seem obsessed with a similar “hyper-correctness,” pointing to this canon or that canon or proof texting the Fathers… but likewise missing the point.)
VALIDITY AND EFFICACY APPLIED TO INFANT BAPTISM
The point that I am attempting to make here is that salvation requires synergy. Whether forced into baptism at the point of a sword or baptized as an infant in the Church, the sacrament is valid. The question of efficacy depends on how we respond. Don’t misunderstand, though, efficacy is not based on our works but our response. This is also an important distinction: God performed the salvific work and gives it to us as a gift. Our response is to receive it. If someone is forced into baptism but does not respond, the gift remains unwrapped, so to speak; likewise, if someone is baptized as an infant and chooses to live as a profligate, he sells his birthright, just like Esau (Gen. 29:25–34), to feed the pleasures of the flesh.
So is forced baptism effective baptism? Well, they certainly are valid. But the efficacy depends on our response.
Made a video about this topic that you can watch here.
Would you please consider supporting my work by joining as a substack paid member, on Patreon, or via a single donation?
💸 Make a one-time donation: Venmo | PayPal | Support monthly on Patreon
⭐ ⭐ ⭐ Links to my other work: My Book on Gender | YouTube | Twitter | Facebook | Instagram | Podcast
Quotes from the Church Fathers on forced conversion:
St. Athanasius of Alexandria (d. 373): "For violence is no true measure of persuasion, nor can anything be compulsory in matters of belief; but rather, it is characteristic of demons and wicked men, and nothing else" (Letter to Dracontius).
St. Augustine of Hippo (d. 430): "Let no one be compelled to come to baptism through fear of punishment or hope of gain; rather, let him freely choose to be saved" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists).
St. John Chrysostom (d. 407): "For it is impossible that the soul should be really profited by compulsion; and it is necessary that he who is to be saved should believe willingly, not by compulsion" (Homily 28 on the Gospel of St. Matthew).
St. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444): "For such as these cannot possibly receive the mysteries of the truth, when they neither approach willingly nor have faith in the divine doctrines, but are forced by fear and threats" (Commentary on the Gospel of St. John).
St. Gregory the Great (d. 604): "For just as it is not lawful to force anyone to accept the faith, so it is not lawful to pevent anyone from accepting it, when he wishes to do so" (Epistle 106 to Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria).
St. Bede the Venerable (d. 735): "For the law of Christ should be preached with patience, not with violence; with good will, not with fear; with persuasion, not with coercion" (Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles).
Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274): "It is unlawful to baptize a person against his will; because, just as a person is not bound to receive the faith unless he is willing to do so, so too he is not bound to be baptized unless he is willing to do so" (Summa Theologiae III, q. 68, a. 2).
Bernard of Clairvaux (d. 1153): "No one should be forced to believe, since faith is a matter of the heart, not of the body; and no one should be forced to be baptized, since baptism without faith is useless" (Sermon 5 on the Song of Songs).
See Henry Charles Lea. “Ferrand Martinez and the Massacres of 1391” in The American Historical Review, Jan., 1896, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Jan., 1896), pp. 209- 219. Oxford University Press.
Jews in the eleventh and twelfth centuries faced a similar choice, for instance, during the Rhineland Crusades but the majority chose death to baptism (See Cecil Roth. A History of the Marranos (New York), Sepher-Hermon Press).
The secret practice of Judaism led to a series of Jewish-leading traditions that were inherited by Catholic families that still exist to this day.
See Edward H. Flannery’s excellent study, The Anguish of the Jews, for a full treatment of anti-Jewish sentiments from the early Church to today.
See Remus Mihai Feraru. “The Religious Policy of Emperor Heraclius (610-641) in regards to Hebrews,” in Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Theologia Orthodoxa 63.1 (2018): pp. 27–40. p. 28.
Ibid, p. 30; They also attempted to banish the Christians from the city altogether (Eutychius, Annales. “Patrologia Graeca; Patrologiae cursus completus, series graeca”, 111, ed. Jacques-Paul Migne, [Paris: 1863], col. 1084-108).
Ibid, p. 32.
Ibid, p. 34.
One such rebellion gave rise to what is known as the Massacre of Verden (782 A.D.) where some 4,500 Saxons were killed.
See Matthew A. McIntosh. A History of Forced Religious Conversion since the Ancient World (web).
The Fourth Crusade, following the violent killing of Latin Christians in Constantinople, resulted in what is known known as the Sack of Constantinople (1204 A.D.).
See St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John.
See Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiae III, q. 68, a. 2; Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermon 5 on the Song of Songs.
There are some Orthodox that try to claim that the distinction between sacramental validity and sacramental efficacy is an Augustine-only distinction, and thus not “Orthodox.” This is clearly a erroneous idea, given the history of the reception of converts via Chrismation or confession or vesting – for if the previous baptism is not valid, then that means that all must be re-baptized when they enter the Church (for baptism is the rite of initiation). And those that have not been rebaptized are not in the Church. For a full treatment of this, see Rebaptism: Patristic Consensus or Innovation.
See St. Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, books 5–6.
See St. Fulgentius of Ruspe, Rule of Faith, 43.
See St. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, 20.
As with all analogies for things divine, this only grazes the surface – and cannot be stretched too far.