What fallacy is found in this text?

Many reports of miracles date from ancient times and come from sources of dubious credibility. Such anecdotal evidence is not sufficient to establish the existence of miracles. "There is not to be found in all history," Hume says, "any miracle attested by a sufficient number of men of unquestioned good sense, education and learning as to secure us against all delusion in themselves; of such undoubted integrity, as to place them beyond all suspicion of any design to deceive others." Those who report miracles typically are not trained observers. Often they have a great desire to believe in miracles or something to gain by getting others to believe in them. In either case, their testimony is not to be trusted. But suppose that a number of people with unquestioned good sense, education and learning did report a miraculous event. Even then, we would not be justified in believing that a miracle had occurred, because the evidence for a miracle can never outweigh the evidence for the natural law it supposedly violates.

Help me out please!:
What fallacy is found in this text?

I can't find any.

The text contains an example of the fallacy of circular reasoning, in essence it says, "Nothing can break natural law because natural law cannot be broken." This answer is about the argument itself , which is circular, not about the status of natural law.

I think whether it is circular depends on your presuppositions about how the world works. To a believer in miracles the top text is circular and to a non believer it is sound reasoning. This calls to mind the subjectivist fallacy, which states that a fact like this is universal and does not vary depending on your belief system. There is only one answer. In my understanding of how the world works, miracles by definition are things which violate natural law which is impossible.