Simple rumour by itself was not of great practical value. It had to be organized. Hence the ruling of Innocent Ill's decretal, _Licet Heli_ (1199), relating to clerical abuses, that superiors are to keep diligent watch over their subordinates, so as to bring their misdoings before judicial authority; hence, as regards heresy, the system of 'synodal witnesses,' whose specific duty it was to vocalize local public opinion or knowledge. The general vague _diffamatio_ of the neighbourhood is by them so crystallized as to become of practical value in a court of law. But while this system of using the depositions of the synodal witnesses and the village clergy, accomplished much, further organization was needed. The additional device necessary was provided by the institution of the special papal delegates, who were inquisitors in two different senses--judicial officers, examining charges brought before them as members of a tribunal; but also procurators making the preliminary investigations prior to trial. They had two distinct functions, two distinct inquisitions to make. These are technically _inquisitio generalis_ and _inquisitio specialis_.
As the system became elaborated, the inquisitors had at their command a formidable spy system, carried on by their agents, the familiars. At the same time much encouragement was given to wholesale delation. The inquisitor or his vicar would make a sudden dramatic descent upon town or village, and deliver a solemn, perhaps menacing, exhortation to the inhabitants to proffer information against heretics. By thus appealing to the religious zeal or the apprehensions of the populace many accusations would be obtained, often from husbands and wives, parents and children. But to reinforce such voluntary incriminations it was customary to proclaim a 'time of grace,' which lasted from a fortnight to a month. If within that period the heretic came forward, acknowledged his own guilt and gave any information he possessed against others, he would obtain either complete exemption or considerable alleviation from the penalties merited by heresy. This method, Bernard Gui assures us, was remarkably satisfactory.[377]
The _inquisitio generalis_ being concluded, and prisoners obtained either by voluntary self-denunciations or on the information of others, the judge, according to canonical usage, had a choice of expedients. He could either proceed to an _inquisitio specialis_ or make use of the method of _purgatio canonica_. The second method had been solemnly adopted by the Church in 803.[378] It was an appeal to God. The accused solemnly swore by the Gospels that he was innocent, while those of his friends or neighbours willing to support him acted as his _compurgatores_ and gave similar solemn testimony to his innocence, their number, from two or three to forty, varying in accordance with the degree of suspicion existing against him. The device was obviously defective. Its only advantage lay in the impressiveness of its appeal to the devout mind, persuaded of the heinousness of the sin of perjury, while it allowed the innocent man to suffer, if he happened to be unpopular and could not prevail upon the necessary number of compurgators to assist him, and also allowed the guilty to go free, so long as he was not over-scrupulous as regards perjury and had the necessary popularity to persuade, or power to compel, others to act as his compurgators. Thus, while the system of canonical purgation was never abolished, it had fallen into virtual desuetude before the end of the thirteenth century.[379] In practice the _inquisitio generalis_ was followed automatically by the _inquisitio specialis_. The accused was served with a citation to appear before the tribunal and kept in prison pending his trial.[380]