[Apogee]

I didn't see that you did, that is why I was wondering.

The textbook definition of deism seems to not be consistent with Franklin's, as he both claimed to be a deist, and to believe that God intervened in the affairs of men.

Many of the doubters or deists of the day do not seem to have any beliefs that are not held on some level by much of the American church today, but in their time were considered aberrant.

Then there are the mis labelings of folks like Locke, and possible misrepresentation of Newton (Wikipedia seems to be hung on proving he was non trinitarian based upon his questioning of whether the original text in a certain passage was as we have it today, something that many moderns do in many places without in any sense thinking themselves nonbelievers, deists, or even serious doubters - for the record, the sources in their articles are Muslim, and they seem to have a vested interest in imputing non-trinitarian beliefs to people). All in all, I would like to see some scholarly research and distinctions made on the topic.

[Mylo]

Belief in Providence is not necessarily belief in devine intervention. One might assume that all God needed was the initial conditions, and then all would unfold as HE had forseen it.

Intellectual contradictions abound in the theological beliefs of men; and the language of the time was steeped in religious phrases.

Thomas Jefferson had this to say of the Trinity.

"It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests." - Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1803