However, inferences as to the law in the preceding period must be made with caution. The case of Stephens _v._ Totty, decided at the Michaelmas term, 44 and 45 Eliz., shows that a husband and a wife divorced _a mensa et thoro_ were still married: CROKE'S _Reports_ (Elizabeth), 908. _Cf._ on this act especially HALE, _Hist. of the Pleas of the Crown_ (London, 1800), I, 691-93; also WOOLSEY, _Divorce_, 171; _Law Review_ (Eng.), I, 362. Furthermore, RAYNOLDS, a strong advocate of absolute divorce, in his _Defence of the Judgment of the Reformed Churches_ (1609), appears to make no claim that his doctrine is sustained either by law or custom. So also in the quaint treatise, _The Lawes Resolutions of Women's Rights_ (London, 1632), 64 ff., full divorce is not recognized; although, referring to the fact that legally "no crime dissolueth marriage," the compiler (67) seemingly approves Conrad Lagus who says, "seeing that in Contracts of Wedlock we regard as well what is decent and conuenient, as what is lawfull, I cannot tell why we be not bound in dissoluing of it to follow the like equitie; and for example, if a Wife cannot dwell with her husband without manifest danger of death ... why may not she be separated iudicis ordinarij cognitione precedente?" On the other hand, SPENCE, _Equitable Jurisprudence_, I, 702, believes that the bond not to marry required by the canons of 1603 was the only hindrance to remarriage after divorce; and from this time onward he thinks it "not unlikely that the court of chancery decreed divorces _a vinculo_; and that the American courts of equity brought this doctrine (or right) with them." This view is rejected by SCRIBNER, _Treatise on the Law of Dower_, II, 545-47, although he agrees as to the effect of the bond.] [Footnote 253: Porter's case, Easter term, 12 C. I.: CROKE'S _Reports_ (Charles I.), 461-63.] [Footnote 254: See the strong argument of Holburn and Grimston for the defendant who justly claim that a "divorce _causa saevitiae_ is grounded _ex jure naturae_, and is in the same manner and nature as a divorce _causae adulterii_: CROKE'S _Reports_ (Charles I.), 463. HALE, _Hist. of Pleas of the Crown_, I, 693, remarks "certainly the divorce intended" by James's act "is not _a vinculo matrimonii_;" and then further observes, in Porter's case "it was doubted, whether a divorce _causâ saevitiae_ were such a divorce as was within this exception, because it seemed rather to be a provisional separation for the wife's safety and maintenance, than a divorce; but it was never resolved." _Cf._ also _Co. Lit._, 235; MARCH, _Reports of New Cases_, 101; COKE, _Institutes_, III, 89; KELYNG, _Report of Divers Cases_ (Dublin, 1789), 27; GEARY, _Marriage and Family Relations_, 12.] III. LAW AND THEORY DURING THREE CENTURIES