“Prof. Bush, in writing to Mr. Miller, said: ‘I do not conceive your errors on the subject of chronology to be at all of a serious nature, or in fact to be _very wide of the truth_. In taking a _day_ as the prophetical time for a _year_, I believe you are _sustained_ by the _soundest exegesis_, as well as _fortified_ by the high names of Mede, Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop Newton, Faber, Scott, Keith, and a host of others, who have long since come to _substantially your conclusions_ on this head. They _all agree_ that the leading periods mentioned by Daniel and John _do actually expire about this age of the world_; and it would be strange logic that would convict you of heresy for holding in effect the same views which stand forth so prominently in the notices of these eminent divines.’ ‘Your results in this field of inquiry do not strike me as so _far out of the way_ as to affect any of the great interests of truth or duty.’—_Ad. Her._, vol. 7, p. 38. “Writing to Prof. Stuart, Prof. Bush said: ‘I am not inclined precipitately to discard an opinion _long prevalent in the church_, which has commended itself to those whose judgments are entitled to profound respect. That such is the case in regard to the _year-day_ calculations of prophecy I am _abundantly satisfied_; and I confess, too, at once to the pleasure that it affords me to find that that which is sustained by _age_ is also sustained by _argument_.’ Again he says: ‘Mede is very far from being the first who adopted this solution of the symbolic term day. It is the solution naturally arising from the construction put, in _all_ ages, upon the oracle of Daniel respecting the SEVENTY WEEKS, which, by Jews and Christians, have been interpreted weeks of years, on the principle of a day standing for a year. This fact is obvious from the Rabbinical writers _en masse_, where they touch upon the subject; and Eusebius tells us (_Dem. Evangl._ 8, p. 258—Ed. Steph.), that this interpretation in his day was _generally_ if not _universally admitted_.’ “I have, in my own collection, writers on the prophecies, previous to the time of Mede, who interpret the 1260 days as so many years, and who are so far from broaching this as a _new_ interpretation that they do not even pause to give the grounds of it, but proceed onward, as if no risk were run in taking for granted the soundness of the principle which _came down to them accredited by the IMMEMORIAL usage of their predecessors_.’—_Hierophant_, vol. 1, p. 245. “If the old, established principle of the year-day theory is wrong, then, said Prof. Bush, ‘not only has the whole Christian world been led astray for ages by a mere _ignis fatuus_ of false hermeneutics, but the church is at once cut loose from every chronological mooring, and set adrift in the open sea, without the vestige of a beacon, light-house, or star, by which to determine her bearings or distances from the desired millennial haven to which she had hoped she was tending.’