Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2010, 236 pgs.
Summary: Peter Lombard presents a confused understanding of Augustine’s view of creation and anthropology modified to a semi-Pelagian to almost Pelagian theology either purposely or through ignorance of Augustine’s authentic works.
According to Peter, “For there is in the rational soul a natural will, by which it naturally wills what is good, although weakly and feebly, unless grace assists. . .” (2.24.1.3, pg. 109). This free will is described as such “because, without compulsion or necessity, it is able to desire or elect what it has decreed by reason” (2.25.4.2, pg. 118). “And yet we do not deny that there are many good things which are done by man through free choice before this grace and apart from grace” (2.26.7.2, pg. 130).
And then this lovely quote which he attributes to Jerome, but since the Renaissance is now recognized as Pelagius:
Jerome teaches in his Explanation of the Catholic Faith to Pope Damascus, where he strikes at the errors of Jovinian, Manichaeus, and Pelagius, saying: “We acknowledge that choice is free so as to say that we are always in need of God’s aid; and that both those are in error who say with Manichaeus that man cannot avoid sin, and those who assert with Jovinian that man cannot sin. Each of them takes away freedom of choice. But we say that man is always able to sin and not to sin, so that we confess ourselves to be ever free in our choice. This is the faith which we learned in the Catholic Church and which we have always held.”
It’s not clear to me that Peter Lombard is unaware that he is quoting Pelagius to support conclusions that are both non-Augustinian and unbiblical. (This will be discussed more in the review on book 3 and 4.) At the same time “among the works attributed to Augustine” were sermons, letters, and writings that were not authentically Augustinian in authorship or doctrine, and so it is possible that he’s struggling to harmonize self-contradictory teachings within what he understands is Augustine’s canon. This is occurs while he attempts to harmonize the contradictory teaching of Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Bede, and so forth. There is even an effort to harmonize these diverse teachings with the Bible.
He teaches along with others before him that the “pollution which the flesh contracts in its conception from the burning of the parents’ joining and their lustful concupiscence” (2.32.6.2, pg. 156). In other words, we are born with a sin nature or original sin, because our parents or one of our parents enjoyed conceiving us. While Augustine in his authentic works lays out the framework for this sort of doctrine, the most blatant support comes from Augustine-like quotes from Fulgentius (c. 462-527).
Peter Lombard also rejects the possibility that at conception both physical and spiritual elements of parents are passed to the child. The technical term for this is traducianism: Peter rather firmly states, “But the Catholic faith utterly rejects this and condemns it as opposed to truth since, as we said above, that faith admits that flesh alone, and not souls, is transmitted. And so it is not according to the flesh, that original sin is derived from parents” (2.31.3.1, pg. 154). Augustine was certainly more open to the possibility than this quote allows and traducianism was held by other church fathers including Tertullian.
Oddly enough he provides an explanation of the pop-culture reference to an angel on one shoulder and a demon on the other: apparently this was first taught by Origen, then by Gregory of Nyssa, and popularized for posterity by Lombard (2.11.1.2, pg. 46).
He may have originated the now hoary-headed sermon illustration:
Why woman was formed from the man’s side and not from some other part of his body. But although woman was made from man for these reasons, nevertheless she was formed not from must any part of his body, but from his side, so that it should be shown that she was created for the partnership of love, lest, if perhaps she had been made from his head, she should be perceived as set over man in domination; or if from his feet, as if subject to him in servitude. Therefore since she was made neither to dominate, nor to serve man, but as his partner, she had to be produced neither from his head, nor from his feet, but from his side, so that he would know that she was to be placed beside himself whom he had learned had been taken from his side (2.28.2; pg. 77).
Benefits/Detriments: Book 2 exposes what happens when a possibly earnest attempt is made to harmonize the Bible, current church practice, and the diverse teaching of the church fathers. It’s rather a mishmash and at points incoherent.