It thus appears that theological subtlety, partly under stress of the needs of actual life, has found a way to pass far beyond the limits which any reasonable interpretation of the scriptural precepts will permit. In dealing with the question of divorce _a vinculo_ an inconsistency even greater is shown, and the results are far more disastrous; for the door is thereby opened for manifold hardships and corruption. In the first place, two exceptions to the rule that a genuine marriage cannot be dissolved are sanctioned by the law and practice of the Church. The _privilegium Paulinum_ is thus freely admitted.[150] If the Christian convert is abandoned by his infidel spouse, he is allowed to contract a new marriage. Only by an ingenious assumption can this liberty be harmonized with the prevailing dogma. The case is no exception, we are told, for it is the infidel, not the believer, who dissolves the marriage; and the rule of the church does not apply when the unbeliever "renounces his right" to maintain that relation, in order to "make use of his own heathen law."[151] In England, where the canon law of divorce was in full force, the _casus apostoli_ had a practical application to the advantage of the faithful in their dealings with the Jews. "In 1234 a Jewish widow was refused her dower on the ground that her husband had been converted and that she had refused to adhere to him and be converted with him. An Essex jury even doubted whether if two Jews married under the 'Lex Judaica' but afterwards turned to the 'Lex Christiana' and then had a son, that son could be legitimate;"[152] but this finding is not in harmony with the teaching of the canon law. Moreover, in modern times, with the spread of Catholic missions into many new lands, this privilege has been of increasing importance.[153] [Footnote 150: _Decret. Grat._, II, _caus._ xviii, qu. 2, C. 2; and _Decretals_ IV, 19, _de divortiis_, c. 7: see RICHTER-FRIEDBERG, _Corpus juris can._, I.] [Footnote 151: This is FREISEN'S argument, _op. cit._, 825-27, 817 ff. See also SCHEURL, _Das gem. deut. Eherecht_, 276-78. The canon law maintains the validity of a marriage between two infidels contracted before conversion. According to PETER LOMBARD, the believer may, indeed, put away his unconverted consort, but may not remarry. Only when the infidel is the active party, the Christian being the passive, is the latter released from the marriage bond: _Sententiae, IV._, D. 39, § G; FREISEN, _op. cit._, 814. This privilege is much discussed in modern theological literature: see the references in FREISEN, _op. cit._, 826 n. 27. In general compare WOOLSEY, _Divorce_, 74 ff., 125; ESMEIN, _op. cit._, I, 220-32; II, 268 ff., 307; SCHEURL, _op. cit._, 276, 277.] [Footnote 152: POLLOCK AND MAITLAND, _Hist, of Eng. Law_, II, 391, 392: citing for the first case TOVEY, _Anglia Judaica_, 84; _Co. Lit._, 31_b_, 32_a_; and for the second, _Calend. Geneal._, II, 563.]