Besides their first names, Toland and Locke shared many commonalities in their philosophy, especially in epistemology, the critique of religious authority, and the defense of religious toleration. Both Toland and Locke belong to the boarder enlightenment movement and are often grouped together as empiricists and the belief that human reason is the primary source of larger knowledge. Though despite sharing the same basis, the two men are significantly different in their thoughts on revelation, the limits of religious tolerance, and the nature of God. Toland frequently begins with Lockean premises but uses a much stricter concept of reason that is often goes in a more radical and sometimes subversive direction.
To begin, both Toland and Locke based on theories of knowledge in empiricism. They deny the existence of innate knowledge, and claim instead that all knowledge comes from the sense experience and the reflection on that experience. In the case of Locke, he argues that the mind at birth is a “tabula rasa” a blank late that is gradually filled in with senses and ideas. Toland completely accepts this, for him the complete authority of reason arises specifically because of the fact that human knowledge is developed from seeing the world and not from mysterious innate truths implanted by God. Thus sense experience alongside reason is the only reliable foundation for understanding.
The primary difference here between them is that while Locke gave priority to reason, he does not eliminate revelation from truth. Instead he argues that revelation is acceptable so long as it does not contradict reason. Revelation may go beyond reason, meaning it may teach something that we could not have possibly discovered through sense experience and reason alone, but it cannot violate reason. Locke’s Christianity asks believers to accept some doctrines purely through faith, so long as they are not contradictory to reason.
Toland on the other hand, dismissed the idea of anything being “beyond reason”. In his work Christianity Not Mysterious, he argues that anything revealed by God must be completely understandable by human reason. Any true doctrine must be able to be discovered through reason alone, or else it is not true. Any appeal to mystery and accepting the doctrine on the basis of faith is clerical deception or ignorance. So unlike Locke who allows revelation so long as it does not contradict reason, Toland insists that anything knowable though revelation could have been discovered through reason alone, and anything not intelligible by reason must be rejected. Locke and Toland both agree that faith cannot contradict reason but Toland takes it one step further and completely denies revelation as an acceptable source of knowledge.
Another area in which the two philosophers can be easily compared is in political philosophy. Toland inherited much of the liberal political theory of Locke, especially the beliefs in natural rights, the consent of the governed, and freedom of religion. Both men openly oppose religious coercion and argue the importance of freedom of thought and being able to decide your own beliefs. However, Toland’s thoughts on religious toleration are far more open. Locke excluded atheists and Catholics from toleration, he believed that Catholics had an allegiance to two crowns, one to the country, and one to the pope, and therefore could not be trusted in civil society. Atheists on the other hand because of their lack of faith could not be bound to their oaths and thus could not be trusted to uphold their morals or to abide by contracts. Toland rejects both exclusions and argues for complete religious tolerance. Both Toland and Locke oppose governments ruled by religious authorities or governments that enforce religion. Toland pushes the critique even further arguing against “priestcraft” the use of religious authority to manipulate people as a threat to free society.
Their religious beliefs diverge more drastically. Locke was a Christian who defended a more rational and moderate form of the faith. He was not a conventional believer, his views often differing from the orthodox doctrine, and he wanted to interpret Christianity under reason. Nevertheless, he does believe in the idea of a personal god, accepts the authority of the New Testament, and believed in a sort of afterlife where moral choices mattered. Toland on the other hand had a bit of a journey. He was raised Catholic and was converted to Anglicanism as a young adult, but over the course of his life and as his research into philosophy developed he gradually embraced a more radical theology. His early works leaned into deism, where God created the world and the systems the things work by, but did not have a direct hand in the ongoings of it. His later works however, such as Pantheisticon marked his transition to pantheism, claiming that God was one with nature itself and denying a distinction between creator and creation.
The difference in their metaphysical beliefs is an obvious conclusion to their differences in theologies. Locke remained non-committal about metaphysics. He did not claim one way or another about the nature of the soul as an immaterial substance or as matter that thinks, his framework however is one in which an immaterial soul is possible and likely. Locke believes in a God that is an all-powerful creator who is apart from the natural world. Toland rejects dualism and potentially influenced by Baruch Spinoza argues against the distinction of soul and matter. He claims that matter itself is inherently active and self-moving. These pantheistic beliefs of God deny a barrier between natural and divine leaving no room for arguments for anything immaterial. Compared to Locke, Toland is far less religious.
In summary, Toland and Locke shared a common starting point in their philosophy, that being empiricism. The both argued for natural rights, against religious authority and for religious tolerance. The differences however are clear. Toland’s views were often simply more radicalized versions of Locke’s, where Locke liked to keep a balance between reason and faith, Toland rejects faith as a basis for understanding entirely. Toland advocated for religious tolerance without limit, where Locke excluded some groups from tolerance. Locke believed in a God separate from his creation, whereas ultimately Toland ended up believing that there is no such distinction. Looking at his works its easy to view Toland as a sort of intellectual descendent of Locke, but he was one that pushes Locke’s principles to the furthest they can go, and often times far past what the public was willing to accept.