When the apostle defended his office against those who would have discredited

him, he appealed unto this confirming evidence of miracle:

`Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience,

in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds' (2 Cor. 12:12).

`Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the spirit of God;

so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully

preached the gospel of Christ' (Rom. 15:19).

`Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to  Barnabas

and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the

Gentiles by them' (Acts 15:12).

The confirmation is most obvious in the cases of Moses.  It demanded the

greatest courage on the part of Moses to go to Pharaoh and demand the release

of Israel, and it was extremely unlikely that Israel would respond without

some clear attestation from above:

`And Moses answered and said, But, behold, they will not believe me,

nor hearken unto my voice: for they will say, The Lord hath not

appeared unto thee' (Exod. 4:1).

The answer of the Lord was in the nature of miraculous signs: the serpent,

typifying Satan, and leprosy typifying sin.  Even the Lord Himself appealed

to the miracles He wrought saying:

`The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me'.

`If I do not the works of My Father, believe me not.  But if I

do, though ye believe not Me, believe the works' (John 10:25,37,38).

`Believe Me for the very works' sake' (John 14:11).

Thus it is demonstrated that miracles were given to confirm the

revelation to Moses, to the apostles and to Christ Himself.  This is so

natural, so expected, that the very ones who object to the presence of

miracle in the Bible, would be the first to affirm that the Bible could not

be a revelation from God if no miracles accompanied its unfolding.  Then

again, it is objected that miracles are unscientific.  The laws of nature

cannot thus be set aside.  Miracles cannot happen, and no `proof' can be

entertained.  We all know this kind of argument.  One would imagine that the

laws of nature actually exist outside the mind of the scientist who frames

them.  Many so -called laws of nature have been deposed from their throne, to

be taken by others, which in turn will be eclipsed.  We see a stone fall to

the earth and we speak of `the law of gravitation'.  God, the Creator, Who

planned that stones should fall downward, is supposed to be utterly unable to

do what is done every minute of waking life.  We have only to introduce a

Person into creation, and water flows upward, light produces sound, masses of

metal float on water or fly through the air, in every case breaking or

altering the operation of certain `laws of nature'.

Take a simple illustration.  We spend several hours on the edge of a

cliff, letting pebble after pebble go, and demonstrating that it is a law of

nature, that anything that is let go at the top of the cliff will most

certainly fall to the bottom.  A little child comes toddling to the edge of

the cliff, slips and begins to fall, but mother love brushes aside the laws

of nature so patiently and so scientifically demonstrated by us, puts out an

arm, intercepts the child and saves its life.  That is all that a miracle is.

The interposition of a Person, and if that person be God, what limits shall

we put to His power? Instead, therefore, of speaking of miracles as though it

were unreasonable to expect them, it is altogether the other way.  Grant a