Fenwick disclosed divisions amongst the Nonjurors, classifying them as compounders and non-compounders--the compounders being anxious for some security from King James, that English religion and liberty would be preserved in case of his restoration; and the non-compounders being prepared to cast themselves entirely upon his honour and generosity. Lloyd, the deprived Bishop of Norwich, adopted the latter view, and would hear of no terms in a matter of Divine right.[293] [Sidenote: JACOBITES.] The Bill for Fenwick’s attainder created much discussion in the House of Commons. The discussion took a theological turn upon the point of deficiency of evidence, the testimony of one witness not being backed by the testimony of a second. Much was said by the opponents of the attainder, respecting the eternal law of God and man, and of the Holy Scriptures requiring more witnesses than one to convict a person of a capital crime. “No man,” it was repeated, “shall be condemned to die by the mouth of one witness, but by two or three witnesses he shall suffer.” It was replied, that not the Levitical law, but the law of England, should be guide in such a case; then, some one rejoined, that he and those who thought with him, did not wish to base their argument simply on Scripture, but upon the fact that this law of Moses having been confirmed by our Saviour in the New Testament, it ought to be brought into connection with the law of the land.[294] In spite of attempts made to save Sir John, the Bill passed both Houses. Robert Nelson interceded with Tenison to plead with the King. “My very good friend,” returned the Primate, “give me leave to tell you, that you know not what spirit this man, nor I am of; I wish for his, nor no man’s blood, but how can I do my duty to God and my King, should I declare a man innocent; for my not being of the side of the Bill will convince the world that I think him so, when I am satisfied in my conscience, not only from Goodman’s evidence, but all the convincing testimonies in the world, that he is guilty. Laws _ex post facto_ may indeed carry the face of rigour with them, but if ever a law was necessary this is.”[295] [Sidenote: 1696.]