"Which never appeared in any human shape": Laudians against the Rublev icon?

In two earlier posts (here and here) referencing Taylor's critique of depictions of the Holy Trinity dependent on Old Testament encounters, I suggested that this would point to a rejection by Taylor of the famous and ubiquitous Rublev icon.  Taylor was not alone amongst the Laudians in adhering to this conventional Reformed critique of depictions of the Trinity.  In his A New Gagg for an Old Goose (XLIV, 1624), the Laudian Richard Montague had similarly stated - in response to a Roman apologist - objections to such depictions, declaring "it is utterly unlawful to picture or represent the Trinity":

And your Masters can tell you, that whereas it is related in the old Testament often, that God appeared unto men, the Doctors of the Church are not resolved, whether God appeared at any time personally, or wholly by the Ministry of Angels. Your men, the Jesuits, Victorellus, Vasquez, and the rest, nay, all later Divines, saith Vasquez, but Clicthous, affirm, that God never appeared but by the Ministry of Angels. So that your express testimonies are in a wise case; and yourself an Ignorant or a Confident, that knew not this, or dare oppose your Yea unto their Nay.

Therefore, Isaiah 6:1, he that sat upon the Throne, and he that, Dan. 7:9, is described, was not God, but some Angel; or if God, yet the second Person: the Father never appearing unto any. Therefore, as Vasquez himself confesseth, that great Upbearer of Roman Idolatry, Henricus, Durand, Martin Ayala, do teach it as well as Calvin, that it is utterly unlawful to picture or represent the Trinity, or God, otherwise than as in Christ he took our flesh, and was found among us as a man. These were nor Hereticks, nor Protestants, that did teach so: and yet we see it ordinary amongst our good Catholics, to represent the picture of the Trinity more ways than one, which never appeared in human shape, as yet to any. 

Impious Artificers, not onely vain, that make the most blessed and most glorious Trinity a certain Geryon; or, as Tertullian phraseth it, Sororem vasculorum: A thing not only contrary unto reason, but to the despite and contumely of God: whose glory being such as cannot be uttered, and shape such as cannot be expressed, is denominated from, and represented in base and corruptible things, that have no permanency without supply. So feelingly complained Justin Martyr of your Comrades, the Idolaters of those times. 

Such Images Hesselius a Papist, Professor at Louain, whereby God the Father is represented in an human shape, utterly himself disliketh, and justifieth his dislike out of the Fathers; that not only Protestants may be the mislikers of such impiety, but Papists of better spirits, and more solid learning.