Sergio Romero
The Protestant Reformation, symbolically initiated by the German priest
Martin Luther (14831546) in Wittenberg in 1517, assailed the bases of Europe in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It fundamentally divided the continent, ending the
previously ubiquitous presence of the Catholic Church, which then had to compete
with the new Protestant churches. Among the rising Protestant sects, Lutheranism,
founded by Luther, and Calvinism, founded by the French Scholastic John Calvin
(15091564), became prominent. Luther’s and Calvin’s ideas, while differing, stood
united in defying the authority of the Pope in Rome by following the Protestant
principles of sola scriptura, sola fide (“through faith alone, by Scripture alone”) and
the universal priesthood of all believers (Wilhelm). England in the sixteenth, a
kingdom recently converted from Catholicism to the Protestant faith, was also greatly
influenced by the ideas of Luther and Calvin. These increasingly influential Protestant
ideas struggled to establish their dominance in societal and scholarly backgrounds
over the Catholic views that preceded them. English author Christopher Marlowe’s
The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus (c. 1592) explores the Christian themes of sin
and salvation without explicitly endorsing a specific denomination. Although the
context in which Doctor Faustus was written may suggest that the play is a markedly
Protestant and anti Catholic work, the presence of distinctly Catholic views of sin and
salvation challenges this notion and frames the play as more complex in its
theological ideas.
The lack of endorsement of a specific denomination through which to analyze
these theological concepts in Doctor Faustus has led authors to approach the play
from primarily Protestant perspectives. For example, Clifford Davidson argues that
the play has strong Lutheran origins, stating that it depicts Luther’s idea that faith
alone can “keep the strength of the devil from dominating man’s life” (514).
Furthermore, Davidson argues that Faustus’ condition as a teacher at the University of
Wittenberg establishes a direct association between him and prominent reformers like
Luther and fellow Wittenberg theologian and scholar Philip Melanchthon (1497
1560). Meanwhile, Pauline Honderich argues that the play is fundamentally Calvinist
in its theology and conception of God, describing, for example, the presence in the
play of the Calvinist doctrine in which grace is ascribed by God and man has free will
only while doing evil (10). The theological analyses of Doctor Faustus have mainly
focused on showing how the play exhibits Protestant conceptions and messages. Such
a disproportion of works written from a Protestant perspective has led some in the
academic community to see the play as a distinct product of the Reformation, a work
that displays doctrines that are not aligned with and which criticize Catholicism. This
essay will seek to contribute to the debate surrounding the play’s religious messages
by addressing the work from a Catholic perspective. It will aim to show how the play
and its characters depict Catholic views of sin and salvation and specifically how its
doctrine of justification affects Faustus’ destiny. By undertaking this analysis from a
Catholic perspective, the intent is to show that the play displays a mixture of religious
conceptions and should not be seen as a work that expressly endorses one specific
Christian denomination
Before analyzing the play’s representations of sin and salvation, it is important
to distinguish how Catholic and Protestant doctrines differ in their interpretation of
both theological concepts. Protestantism’s conception of sin, while not uniform
throughout all branches, generally conceives all sin as mortal, disregarding thus a
hierarchy of sins (Beaumont). Additionally, Calvinist doctrine determined that since
the Fall, man has been perverted and has lost his free will except when sinning
(Honderich 4). In contrast, the Catholic conception of sin discerns the gravity of
various sins based on the Scriptures. It creates a hierarchy that divides venial and
mortal sins, the former of which can be ascribed forgiveness from God (Beaumont).
These different conceptions of sin become important when examining Faustus’
punishment, as each view differently determines the possibility of Faustus’
redemption from his sins, as well as his capacity to be declared justified by God.
Salvation is another concept that differs considerably between both
denominations, especially regarding faith’s role in its justification. Justification is part
of the process of salvation and “denotes the transforming of the sinner from the state
of unrighteousness to the state of holiness and sonship of God” (Pohle). Historically,
salvation has been a point of contention, as these denominations describe it as
achievable through different means. The Protestant perspective on the matter is based
on the doctrine of sola fide, which declares that faith alone is used by God to assign
righteousness and justification to man. Justification in Protestantism is as such granted
to man, as he is “acquitted” and “declared righteous by God” (Lane 17). Conversely,
Catholic beliefs in this regard can be best summarized by the passage, “that of works
a man is justified, and not of faith only” (James 2:24). In this view, to be justified
means to “become a righteous person through the inner working of the Holy Spirit”
(46). As St. Augustine of Hippo (354430) outlined in On the Spirit and the Letter,
“by the law comes the knowledge of sin, by faith the obtaining of grace against sin, by
grace the healing of the soul from the defect of sin, by the healing of the soul comes
the freedom of the will, by the freedom of the will the love of righteousness, by the
love of righteousness comes obedience to the law” (103). These two different
perceptions, while not completely opposed to each other, provide different
interpretations of Faustus’ justification and, as will be outlined later in the essay, come
to be essential when discussing Faustus’ final fate.
In the play, two characters stand out from the others in their constant
insistence that Faustus repent and return to the faith, the Old Man and the Good
Angel. Both characters pity his fate and recognize his initial sin as venial enough to
warrant forgiveness through justification. These characters’ attitudes suggest they are
inspired more by Catholic than Protestant views, with the Good Angel specifically
denoted as belonging to Catholic tradition (Poirier 139). Accordingly, the Old Man
seems to think that Faustus can be justified in a Catholic manner, as when he first asks
Faustus to repent for his sins and he states that he can see an angel with grace to pour
into Faustus’ soul (5.1.5256). The Old Man’s lines also seem to depict him
performing a priestlike job, guiding and acting as an intermediate between Faustus
and God. As Michel Poirier describes, the Old Man’s and Good Angel’s conviction
that it is not too late for Faustus to repent and receive God’s grace is that of a Roman
Catholic or a moderate Protestant, not that of a Calvinist (139). Faustus’ justification,
which both characters insist is still possible, seems not to be of the Protestant kind that
would be granted to Faustus due to his righteousness but rather seems to align with
the process described by St. Augustine, in which Faustus’ repentance will bring him
that grace. It is only after Faustus commits demoniality that the Old Man loses his
hope for Faustus’ salvation, proclaiming him as having excluded from his soul the
heavenly grace of God (5.1.110111). This last act of sin convinces the Old Man that
Faustus is truly lost from grace, not only due to the sin itself but rather because it is a
confirmation of his fall into despair.
Some who believe Marlowe’s play is anti Catholic point to the scene where
the figure of the Pope is a victim of ridicule (3.1). However, this scene, like others,
also serves to downplay Faustus’ infernal powers, as well as the common Protestant
perception of the pope as Antichrist. First, the petty scale of Faustus’ acts against the
Pope should be noted, for these jokes against the head of the Catholic Church are “a
far cry from the display of supreme power for which the hero has bartered away his
soul” (Smith 173). This scene shows how Faustus, even at the peak of his power, is
not able to conjure anything of substance. Furthermore, the play fails to depict the
papacy in the terms that would be expected of a Protestant, and specifically of a
Lutheran work, since it does not conform with Martin Luther’s declaration in the Book
of Concord of the papacy as the Antichrist (4:10). For if the Pope is then an agent of
Satan, why do Faustus and Mephistopheles act against him? While this depiction is
certainly not overtly positive toward Catholicism, it is certainly a far cry from what an
openly Lutheran or anti Catholic work would be.
When discussing sin in Doctor Faustus, it is most important to identify and
understand those sins committed by the titular doctor. Poirier identifies his three
offenses as (1) the sin of overstepping his natural boundaries, (2) the sin of Judas,
despair, and (3) the sin of demoniality (14142). These three sins ultimately originate
from Faustus’ capital sin, his pride. Faustus’ first sin is special in two senses: it is first,
the sin of Adam, a sin which makes him a new Lucifer; and second, this sin leads to
his covenant with the devil, and not the other way around (141). Faustus’ overstep of
his natural boundaries stems from his desire for God’s omnipotence, his desire to rule
over all moving things, to become a deity (1.1.5663). This sin, the result of his pride,
makes him believe he is capable of being equal to God. His pride blinds him to the
consequences of the pact and the petty rewards he obtains from it. Nevertheless, it is
critical that this sin appears not to be mortal, at least not in the Catholic tradition, as
evidenced by the Old Man’s conviction that Faustus can still be redeemed.
However, the same cannot be said of the doctor’s second offense, the sin of
despair. Indeed, Poirier describes Faustus’ second sin as “the only one that cannot be
forgiven” (141). An analysis of Faustus’ despair, which is Reformist in nature, is the
key to understanding his fate and can even lead to criticism of Protestant doctrine.
Despair in the theological sense can be defined as “the voluntary and complete
abandonment of all hope of saving one’s soul and of having the means required for
that end” (Delany). Faustus’ alignment with the reformer’s ideas of sin and
justification, especially those of John Calvin, can be appreciated in Faustus’
perception of his own sin. The doctor believes his first sin is already worthy of God’s
damnation and that he is beyond redemption: “But Faustus’ offense can ne’er be
pardoned” (5.2.15). This perception of his first offense indicates a Protestant belief
that all sins are mortal. Furthermore, Faustus seems to follow Calvin’s doctrine of free
will. As Honderich explains, Faustus feels his free willed decision to do evil is
evidence that he lacks the grace needed to turn back to righteousness (10). Aside from
being a product of Protestant doctrine, his despair also seems to be due to his pride, a
belief that he is particularly far gone from salvation. As Honderich notes, “Like
Philologus (and many other Protestants) he seems almost to take a perverse pride in
the conviction of his own unique depravity.” It is Faustus’ pride and Calvinist free will
that lead him to despair, a sin that not even the Catholic God can forgive: as a result of
his sins, Faustus is unable to be justified by either conception of God, for the
Protestant God will not grant him grace after his first sin, and his Calvinist despair
and lack of repentance deny him justification from the Catholic God.
Doctor Faustus’ interplay between a Catholic and Calvinistic view of God can
serve also to criticize the latter’s radical ideas. Doctor Faustus has a conception of
God as “wrathful and implacable” (Honderich 10) and “not the loving Father, but the
wrathful Jehovah who cast the rebellious angels down to hell” (Ornstein 1383). This
view aligns more with Calvin’s ideas of God than any other. However, despite
Faustus’ perception of God, there is no further confirmation that the God Marlowe
depicts in the play comes from the Calvinistic tradition. A Catholic interpretation
of God in the play is supported by the Old Man’s and Good Angel’s conviction that
Faustus can repent until his last moments, while a Calvinist view of God leads to a
situation in which “the audience could only have been invited […] to exult in the
spectacle of predestined depravity meeting its appropriate doom” (Honderich 10). If
one interprets God in the play as coming from the Catholic tradition, Faustus’ ultimate
journey can be seen as a warning against following Calvin’s teachings, for they will
bring one to despair and negate one’s chance to repent and be justified.
Faustus’s third sin, demoniality, while not as crucial to his ultimate fate, serves
as a last confirmation of his commitment to despair. This sin of demoniality has been
a prominent subject of discussion about the play. For example, W. W. Greg identifies
the scene with Helen as the moment Faustus loses his soul, his new sin being mortal
and beyond salvation (106107). Conversely, other authors like Nicolas Kiessling
have debated this position, disregarding the doctor’s demoniality as beyond salvation,
and instead pointing to pride being the sin definitive to his fate: “Even if we grant that
he did commit the latter sin [demoniality], it was not, in this scene, either ‘ultimate’ or
‘beyond repentance’” (211). While Kiessling’s refutation seems to be stronger and
more coherent than Greg’s position, it does not address the Old Man’s reactions after
the act. Why does the Old Man afterward seem so sure of Faustus’ condemnation?
The Old Man’s statements, rather than a Protestant condemnation of demoniality,
seem to be a recognition that Faustus has completely fallen into despair and is beyond
Catholic justification. First, it is important to note that, as Kiessling explains,
intercourse with demons was perceived as a venial trespassing that could be forgiven,
which discounts the idea of the Old Man outright condemning the act as beyond
redemption in Act 5 (208). The request to Mephistopheles comes after Faustus is
almost moved into redemption by the Old Man’s words. To combat this urge, he
commits the sinful act to prove his loyalty to Lucifer, a final reward before accepting
that his fate lies in hell and not in heaven. In the eyes of the Old Man, this last action
proves above all Faustus’ commitment to despair, as he seeks the pleasure of the flesh
before his inevitable condemnation
Although Christopher Marlowe’s The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus
delves into religious themes and doctrines, the inconsistency of its theology means it
can be neither a work that endorses one specific theological vision nor a work entirely
critical to one of them. The story displays a series of theological ideas and concepts
such as sin, justification, and ultimate salvation, but these ideas are not shown
indisputably through one denomination’s perspective. Not even the play’s conception
of God can be described as consistent, for it differs between characters like Faustus
and the Old Man. Because the perceptions of these various denominations coexist in
the story and are given similar weight, Marlowe does not establish any perspective as
definitive or the only valid one. Honderich states that these inconsistencies derive
from Marlowe’s ignorance, as he “is not writing as a theologian nor a pastor. He is an
artist making whatever use seems to him necessary of whatever material is available”
(10). Religious views in the work, much like in Early Modern England more
generally, are diverse, a mixture of old Catholic ideas and the surging Anglican,
Lutheran, and Calvinist conceptions. The context in which the play was written, along
with Marlowe’s artistry, requires that the work be examined from these often contradicting
perspectives. For this reason, it is inexact to say that the play’s
theological messages solely depict the conceptions of one denomination. It is not a
work entirely derived from the ideas of the Reformation. It is also not appropriate to
ascribe to the play a message of entire opposition to any of these perspectives, for the
work can be seen as critical of both: it is not an anti Catholic or anti Protestant play,
but above all a work of dramatic art that uses these theological ideas to better convey
to the audience its tragic and universal Christian message against sin.