Taylor on the Rublev icon, again

As with Monday's post, we see here Taylor's scepticism about Trinitarian interpretations of the encounter with Abraham at the oak of Mamre:

If the letter of the story infers any undecency or contradiction, then it is necessary that a spiritual or mystical sense be thought of; but never else is it necessary. It may in other cases be useful, when it does advantage to holiness; and may be safely used if used modestly; but because this spiritual or mystical interpretation when it is not necessary cannot be certainly proved, but relies upon fancy, or at most, some light inducement; no such interpretation can be used as an argument to prove an article of faith, or relied upon in matters of necessary concern: the 'three measures of meal' in the gospel, are but an ill argument to prove the blessed and eternal Trinity; and it may be the three angels that came to Abraham will signify no more than the two that came to Lot, or the single one to Manoah, or S. John; this divine mystery relies upon a more sure foundation; and he makes it unsure that causes it to lean upon an unexpounded vision that was sent to other purposes. 'Non esse contentiosis et infidelibus sensibus ingerendum', said S. Austin of the book of Genesis; searching for articles of faith in the by-paths and corners of secret places, leads not to faith but to infidelity, and by making the foundations unsure, causes the articles to be questioned.

From 'The Minister's Duty in Life and Doctrine', Sermon XI, in Volume VIII of The Works.

(The mosaic is 7th century, from the Basilica di San Vitale, Ravenna.)