The paper uses the controversy about liberty between the philosopher Thomas Hobbes and Archbishop John Bramhall to illustrate the conflict between the rhetoric of philosophy and the rhetoric of religion. The first part of the paper introduces initial definitions of these two types of rhetoric. The following three parts deal with three distinct parts of the controversy, as Hobbes and Bramhall define them: to the reader, arguments from scripture, and arguments from reason. The fact that Hobbes and Bramhall themselves divide the arguments into those from scripture and those from reason makes this controversy a good illustration of the conflict between rhetoric of philosophy and rhetoric of religion.

The rhetorical perspective exposes the epistemological conflict between philosophy and religion that the philosophical discourse often blurs. It is a conflict that concerns the basic attitude of an individual towards the truth as a believer or as a thinker. The rhetoric of philosophy assumes that human understanding defines the truth and therefore gives priority to arguments from reason as they address that understanding. The rhetoric of religion assumes that truth is beyond human understanding and can only be revealed by faith and therefore gives priority to arguments from scripture as they address human faith. The reader may join the opponents in asking whether human liberty is a philosophical issue and therefore subject to arguments from reason or a theological one, subject to arguments from scripture.

论文以哲学家托马斯·霍布斯和大主教约翰·布拉姆霍尔关于自由的争论来说明哲学修辞与宗教修辞之间的冲突。本文的第一部分介绍了这两种修辞的初步定义。以下三个部分涉及争议的三个不同部分，正如霍布斯和布拉姆霍尔所定义的那样：对读者、来自圣经的论点和来自理性的论点。霍布斯和布拉姆霍尔自己将论证分为来自圣经的论证和来自理性的论证，这一事实使得这场争论很好地说明了哲学修辞与宗教修辞之间的冲突。

修辞视角暴露了哲学话语经常模糊的哲学与宗教之间的认识论冲突。这是一种冲突，涉及个人作为信徒或思想家对真理的基本态度。哲学的修辞假设人类的理解定义了真理，因此在解决这种理解时优先考虑来自理性的论点。宗教的修辞假设真理超出了人类的理解，只能通过信仰来揭示，因此在涉及人类信仰时优先考虑圣经的论点。读者可能会与反对者一起询问人类自由是否是一个哲学问题，因此受制于理性的论据，还是神学问题，受制于圣经的论据。