To be precise, Feser concludes on page 183 of ‘The Last Superstition’ after detailing some of Locke’s ideas:

“…this is only the beginning of Locke’s many sins against philosophy. And yet he is one of the most important figures in the early modern anti-Aristotelian revolution – and arguably the *quintessential* modern philosopher, insofar as now prevailing Western attitudes about scientific rationality, religious toleration, government by consent, and individual rights owe more to Locke than to any other thinker. As has been noted, the generally acknowledged feebleness of his arguments has not led many to want to reconsider his conclusions, precisely because those conclusions have become so deeply embedded in the Western liberal consciousness that it is simply taken for granted that they *must* be defensible somehow, whether or not Locke himself was able to pull it off.”

Feser rejects both the Enlightenment and the Reformation – which fits in nicely with his apparent distate for their fruits: freedom of conscience, individual rights, representative government and so forth.

Thomas Aquinas, whom Feser seems to regard as the peak of philosophical achievement, flourished in the 13th century.

I think it is not wholly off-base to characterize Feser’s obvious hostility toward modern life and nostalgia for the Middle Ages as a desire to ‘retreat’ to his preferred milieu.

Where in the world did you get the idea that Feser argues for a ‘retreat back into the 13th century,’ especially when it comes to the issues you raised (‘governement by consent, individual rights, and religious tolerance’)?

I can’t see why anyone would argue as he seems to do that the West should retreat back into the 13th Century.