The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2

VIII. Broughton Rebuked for Reviving Porphyry Theory

Notice should be taken of HUGH BROUGHTON (1549-1612), who in the first part of the seventeenth century revived the early Porphyry theory of confining the third kingdom to Alexander in person, and reserving the fourth for the Legidae and Seleucidae— from among which he chose eleven kings, the last of whom was Antiochus Epiphanes as the Little Horn. Acceptance of this view, in Porphyry’s time, was confined to a few writers in the East-Jacob of Nisibis, Ephraim the Syrian, and Polychronius. This concept lay largely dormant until, in 1590, Broughton discovered it in the long-lost work of Polychronius (c. 430), and soon blended his own extravagances with this Porphyrian scheme of the kingdoms and the horns. ²⁰ PFF2 564.4

Both in his Daniel With a Brief Explication and in his A Revelation of the Holy Apocalyps (1610) Broughton had ex pounded the fourth beast as divided Macedon. Thus: PFF2 565.1

“The Beare had but one head: the Lyon one: & the fourth beast: the parted Macedonians but one: that beast is not named, because it was the same nation with the former but is distinguished from the former by ten homes or kings, five Ptolemies and five Select or Antiochi, that vexed Iudah. ²¹ PFF2 565.2

Broughton declared that it was Antiochus, as the Little Horn, who spoke the “great things” and “raged against the temple properly three yeares and an half,” and brought in the Papacy as the two-horned beast of Revelation 13. But, like others, he began the thousand years back in the early centuries. ²² PFF2 565.3

Broughton’s commentaries, in turn, fell into the poetic hands of Ben Jonson, ²³ the dramatist, who satirized the conflict over the fourth beast in one of his leading plays, and fastened responsibility for reviving the Seleucid theory of the fourth empire squarely upon Broughton. The general familiarity of contemporary playgoers with the specifications of Daniel 2 and 7 is evident by the dialogue between Dol and Mammon in The Al chemist (1610), where, citing Broughton’s position, Jonson has his characters use sketchy expressions like “after Alexander’s death,” “the two that stood, Seleuct, and Ptolemy,” “made up the two legs, and the fourth beast,” “Gogironleg and South-iron-leg,” “then Gog-horned,” “then Egypt-clay-leg and Gog- clay-leg,” “last link of the fourth chain. ²⁴ Then Face enters, and discussion centers on how the rabbis differ from Broughton concerning the fourth beast-that it is Rome and not divided Greece-and Dol says: PFF2 565.4

“And the force
Of King Abaddon, and the beast of Cittim:
Which Rabbi David Kimchi, Onkelos,
And Aben Ezra do interpret Rome.” PFF2 566.1

Then comes this telltale colloquy:
“face. How did you put her [Rome] into’t?
“Mam. Alas! I talked
Of a fifth monarchy I would erect.
With the philosopher’s stone, by chance, and she
Falls on the other four straight.
“Face. Out of Broughton!
I told you so. Slid, stop her mouth. ²⁵ PFF2 566.2

The significance of such general familiarity with the prophecies as to allow or warrant such terms and expressions, and any understanding of the controversy stirred up by Broughton, should not be overlooked. These were days of universal interest in, and familiarity with, the prophecies. PFF2 566.3