Your argument in "faith" about David Hume

In the last lesson, "Faith" (a wonderful series by the way, an intellectual experience!)
You attacked Hume, and the supposed inconsistency in his arguments: on the one hand, he demands absolute empiricism, on the other hand, he denies evidence or the observation of miracles.
I don't fully understand! One day he will answer you: It is true that I have a restrictive requirement that requires absolute empiricism and denies mental perfections, etc.,
But that doesn't mean that what is "empirical" is necessarily true (i.e. miracles).
The fact that I deny B (rationality) does not mean that A is necessarily unlimitedly broad (including miracles).
Yom essentially formulates 2 rules: 1. There must be an observed. 2. The observed must also be within the framework of natural laws.
The fact that 1 is a principle of statement about the reliability of visual events does not mean that it is fertile ground for anything that is "foreshadowed".