What is the basis for Lombard's view that the basis of justification for OT men was different than for OT women?

While reading J. V. Fesko's *The Theology of the Westminster Standards*, I found an interesting tidbit in the context of his discussion of justification in Reformed theology: > Medieval theologians such as [Lombard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Lombard) argued that Old Testament men were justified through circumcision and women were justified by their faith and good works. Reformed theology, of course, rejects this idea, holding that justification is by faith alone (not circumcision nor good works). But the idea that men were justified on a different basis than women is still intriguing, so I'd like to better understand the view. **What is the basis for arguing that men and women in the OT were justified through different means?** More specifically, here are a few aspects of the question: - What is the biblical and logical basis for such a view? - Why would there be two means of justification, one for men and one for women? - Why would men not also be justified on the basis of "faith and good works"? - Would faith thus not be required for men to be justified? I'd like to restrict the question to the views of Lombard and other scholastics – here I'm not looking for post-Reformation versions of this view.