There is a manifest gap between the reality and the story of it.

The Evangelists were for the most part 'Jews who sought after a sign.' Something of this wonder-seeking curiosity may very well have given a colour to their account of events in which the really transcendental element was less visible and tangible.

We cannot now distinguish with any degree of accuracy between the subjective and the objective in the report.

But that miracles, or what we call such, did in some shape take place, is, I believe, simply a matter of attested fact.

When we consider it in its relation to the rest of the narrative, to tear out the miraculous bodily from the Gospels seems to me in the first instance a violation of history and criticism rather than of faith.
Still the author of 'Supernatural Religion' is, no doubt, justified in raising the question, Did miracles really happen?
I only wish to protest against the idea that such a question can be adequately discussed as something isolated and distinct, in which all that is necessary is to produce and substantiate the documents as in a forensic process.