That is, a particular teaching is most likely to be true to Scripture, reason, and tradition, if it is ancient and has been widely received and taught, not just by this Church or that, but by a consensus of the Churches through time and space. Particularly clear examples of consensus teaching are the doctrinal definitions of the ancient Ecumenical Councils. These definitions were reached in the first instance by meetings in which the whole Church was represented, and then were received by the consensus of that whole Church over time.

One of the earliest understandings of the concept of integrating Scripture, reason, and tradition comes from Richard Hooker. He argues that the Church has authority to establish governance and order (reason) and that though it has authority in doctrine, it cannot deviate from the faith that has been handed on to it (tradition):

Hooker, therefore, believes that there is a clear or plain sense in Scripture. Because it is clear, it needs no interpretation and should simply be believed. He then argues that reason and the Church, by which he means tradition, hold sway. Where the Church rules on something that is in accord with reason, this overrules any other opinions or theories on offer.

Unknown man, formerly known as Richard Hooker by Unknown artist
oil on panel, 16th century. This unusual object has rarely been displayed. It was given to the Gallery in 1890 when it was thought to be a portrait of the Protestant theologian Richard Hooker. The identity of the sitter is unknown but it is probably a Dutch or Flemish patron The composition on the other side was originally thought to be a fragment from an earlier painting that had been broken up and then reused in order to make the portrait. Re-examination of the portrait has shown that both sides of the wooden panel support were painted at the same time. Given the subject matter of the composition, which relates to resurrection, and the pose of the sitter, it seems most likely that this panel once formed the wing or door of a small triptych altarpiece. The monochrome painting would have been visible on the front of the altarpiece when it was closed. When opened, the sitter in the portrait would have faced towards a central composition depicting a subject such as the Crucifixion. The hinged panel would probably have been mirrored by a portrait of another donor on the other wing.