'What is revealed is extremely little': more from Taylor on the need for modesty in Trinitarian doctrine

In Section XI of his The Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Sacrament (in Volume X of The Works) Jeremy Taylor addressed the contention of Roman apologists that the relationship of transubstantiation to scripture, tradition, and reason was equivalent to that of the doctrine of the Trinity. In refuting this, Taylor gave expression to how modesty and reserve is necessary in the claims of Trinitarian doctrine:

The mystery of the Trinity is revealed plainly in Scripture ... As the doctrine of the holy Trinity is set down in Scripture, and in the Apostles' Creed, and was taught by the fathers of the first three hundred years, I know no difficulties it hath; what it hath met withal since, proceeds from the too curious handling of that which we cannot understand. 

The schoolmen have so pried into this secret, and have so confounded themselves and the articles, that they have made it to be unintelligible, inexplicable, indefensible in all their minutes and particularities; and it is too sadly apparent in the arguments of the Antitrinitarians, whose sophisms against the article itself, although they are most easily answered, yet as they bring them against the minutiæ and impertinences of the school, they are not so easily to be avoided.

... concerning God, we know but very few things, and concerning the mysterious Trinity, that, which is revealed, is extremely little; and it is in general, without descending to particulars: and the difficulty of the seeming arguments against that, being taken from our philosophy, and the common manner of speaking, cannot be apportioned and fitted to so great a secret; neither can that at all be measured by any thing here below ... we can know no measure of truth or error in all the mysteriousnesses of so high and separate, superexalted secrets, as is that of the holy Trinity.

Because when the church, for the understanding of this secret of the holy Trinity, hath taken words from metaphysical learning, as person, hypostasis, consubstantiality ... and such like, - the words, of themselves, were apt to change their signification, and to put on the sense of the present school. But the church was forced to use such words as she had, the highest, the nearest, the most separate and mysterious. But when she still kept these words to the same mystery, the words swelled or altered in their sense; and were exacted, according to what they did signify amongst men in their low notices; this begat difficulty in the doctrine of the holy Trinity. For better words she had none, and all that which they did signify in our philosophy, could not be applied to this mystery; and therefore we have found difficulty; and shall for ever, till, in this article, the church returns to her ancient simplicity of expression.

Taylor here emphasises the need for modesty and reserve in Trinitarian doctrine in three ways.

Firstly, in insisting that the Trinity is "plainly revealed" in Scripture, that the Apostles' Creed sets it forth, and that it was to be found in "the fathers of the first three hundred years", Taylor is establishing a very modest doctrinal foundation for the Trinity.  He terms this "ancient simplicity of expression".  This is the 'grammar' of the Trinity which secures the Church's confession.  Statements beyond this are "explication" rather than the actual grammar of the Faith, as Taylor goes on to state:

All that believed this doctrine, were Christians and catholics, viz. all they who believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one Divinity of equal Majesty in the Holy Trinity; which, indeed, was the sum of what was decreed in explication of the Apostles Creed in the four first general councils.

Secondly, pointing to the limits of Trinitarian language - "the words, of themselves, were apt to change their signification ... the church was forced to use such words as she had" - he also critiqued the uses to which "the school" had put this doctrinal language, and the manner in which its speculations "pried into this secret".  Noting that this had encouraged the Antitrinitarians, Taylor implies that "the school" and the Antitrinitarians alike failed to approach with reverence "the mysteriousness ... of the holy Trinity", a "too curious handling".

Thirdly, and crucially, Taylor emphasises the limits of revelation: "we know but very few things, and concerning the mysterious Trinity, that, which is revealed, is extremely little".  What is known, "is in general, without descending to particulars".  Modesty and reserve in Trinitarian doctrine and claims, therefore, faithfully and reverently reflects the limits of revelation.