We will have to sort it out.
This seems to be factually in error, if we define MN as you seem to be defining it.
I just looked back at the book. The only place that MN comes up is in a footnote in the appendix, where I explain how it interacts with my affirmation of the Resurrection.
I do clearly lay out my methodology. Hans seems to have identified MN with this rule, and perhaps you agree (p. 26):
No additional miracles allowed. No appeals to divine action are permitted to explain the data or increase confidence in the hypothesis. Yes, one direct act of God is included in the hypothesis itself, but the evidential evaluation of the hypothesis cannot infer or rely upon divine action in any way.
What exactly are you objecting to here? Do you believe, to the contrary, that we can and should appeal to divine action to explain way data that would other wise falsify our preferred hypothesis?