"This conclusion would be demonstrative if the principle from which it is drawn were true; but how is it known that the results of chance are always determined by the special will of the Deity? Is his intervention directly perceptible, or can it be known by any apparent indication? From the knowledge that we have of his goodness and wisdom, can it reasonably be supposed that he does so intervene? On the contrary, is it not derogatory to the Supreme Being to suppose that he should immediately interfere in affairs of such small consequence as most of those are which are determined amongst men by means of lots or chance? The very supposition contains within itself the best reasons for concluding it to be untenable. "If the Deity indeed were to act by a special will in all matters which are determined by lot or chance, and more especially in games of hazard, it would hence follow: 1. That men have the power to compel, and in a manner, force the Deity to exercise an especial Providence whenever they may think good; for it is certain that they can determine some matters by lot whenever they please. 2. It will also follow that the Deity 'performs miracles every day in favour of persons who are most assuredly undeserving of them, and in places where no one could suspect that his presence would be displayed in a manner so extraordinary.'[327] Besides, what likelihood is there that, when a couple of lacqueys or porters sit down to play at dice or lansquenet, Providence should more especially interfere in their game than in events which affect the destiny of nations, such as battles, revolutions, and other important actions of a similar kind? There is even something ridiculous in supposing that when two men are playing at draughts, or billiards, their game is only the object of common and ordinary Providence, but that when they sit down to play at dice or cards, a special Providence then intervenes, and determines the chances of the game[328].... "I am, however, willing to allow that even at play there may sometimes be an extraordinary manifestation of Providence, either directly, or by means of some invisible intelligence determining the lot or chance. I can conceive that the Deity should dispose of events in such a manner that a worthy man, for instance, who might be in danger of giving himself entirely up to play, should be cured of his passion by a great and sudden loss. But, even admitting this, there is no reason to conclude that the Deity interferes on all occasions, and in favour of all sorts of people; and, after all, without a direct revelation, it never can be positively known that he really does interfere in such matters. I could just as readily believe what the eloquent Jesuit Maffei relates of Ignatius Loyola, in his life of that saint; namely, that, playing one day at billiards with a gentleman, who had urged him to try the game, he, by a miracle, proved the winner, as he was utterly unacquainted with the game."[329]