I don't remember the author, but a classic work called Sic et Non (roughly translated "Yes and No") was a compilation of quotes from the prior church fathers showing that they were not all so uniform on some dogmas as previously believed, oftentimes believing opposites from one another.
My personal favorite is knowing that at one time there were three popes.
Earning my pay as a historian here: the author of
Sic et Non is Peter Abelard (d. mid-12th c.), who sparred with Bernard of Clairvaux, and was a "liberal" of sorts (moral influence theory of atonement against Anselm's satisfaction view). He's a fascinating fellow (relationship with Heloise). And the three popes were between the Councils of Pisa (1409) and Constance (1415, which handed over Hus for burning, among other outrages), as the tail end of the Avignon papacy and the rise of the conciliar movement. If some of this is unclear, the history is there for anyone to study!
Now for the Newman quote in the OP: typical Newman twaddle and self-justification. Remember this is a man, as part of the Oxford movement, who went from the Anglican church to the RCC. Much of what he did thereafter was self-justification. The sentiment that he expresses is common among RCC apologists. To assert something, however, is not to prove it. It is the case that a church, as is true for the RCC, that reads Scripture through the lens of tradition (Tradition II or III, per Oberman) is going to idolize "history" in a way that thinking Protestants never should.
We understand "history" as the field in which God's providential outworking has manifested itself, particularly God the Father bringing His people to salvation by his appointment, Christ achieving and the Spirit applying that appointed salvation. And the church has, by that same Spirit that gave the Word, in the main, rightly interpreted it (being brought back to it in times of reformation). We are a people for whom history matters immensely because the Incarnation occurred in time and space and our faith, unlike Eastern religions, understands how much history matters.
But history is description, not prescription, which resides solely in the Word. We don't ignore history in interpreting Scripture (this is why we do all the commentary work that we do, listening to the many who've gone before and grappled with the Word). At the end of the day, however, it is Scripture alone (not Scripture and Tradition) that we regard as authoritative and regulative. We are always concerned with how this has been understood and played itself out in the life of the church, but we are never bound to history (tradition) in the way that we are to Scripture.
Newman's assertion here, I would argue, is a departure from the position of the ancient church, which viewed tradition as the church's understanding of Scripture (forming the
regula fidei as expressed in the ecumenical creeds), not the lens through which Scripture is to be read. We read history through the lens of Scripture, not Scripture through the lens of history, Newman has got it all wrong, and this continues to be one of the main problems afflicting the RCC (and leading them to many others!).
Peace,
Alan
