The inquisitors also recognized a class consisting of people who were not really heretics at all, perfect or imperfect, but merely people who gave evidence of heretical disposition or of tendencies which might lead them into heresy. In the fact of its taking cognisance of such a class lies one of the distinguishing features of the Inquisition.[369] The tribunal deliberately dealt with, and had a specific treatment for, those who were merely _suspected_ of crime. Suspicion was classified as light, vehement or violent. There was no precise definition of what was meant by each of these; it was generally left to the inquisitor to decide in each particular case what degree of suspicion existed. It was most essential to avoid all contact with heretics.[370] A man proved to have saluted a heretic or listened to his preaching on a single occasion was regarded as _lightly_ suspect; if he had done so more than once, he was _vehemently_ suspect; if he had done so frequently, he was _violently_ suspect.[371] But such an offence as this, even if often repeated, was not regarded as in itself sufficient evidence of actual heresy. It only made the offender a marked man. In such cases the Inquisition did not dismiss the accused as not guilty; it would not absolutely dismiss a case, unless satisfied that there was no proof whatever. This was due to the intangible nature of an offence which consisted in an intention. The consequence was that the Inquisition, in order to be on the safe side, virtually created a minor offence of allowing oneself to be suspected of heresy. For every good Catholic must realize that any connection with heresy, however remote, is contamination and therefore take the most elaborate precautions to avoid all contact. To become an object of suspicion, therefore, meant either that the suspicion was after all well-founded (on the principle that there is no smoke without fire), or that the conduct which led to suspicion was inadvertent. Was it, then, unreasonable to require that the suspect should make a formal abjuration, to prove that in fact he had no sympathy whatever with heresy, that the suspicion was unfounded? Nor, surely, was it unjust to record such cases of suspicion in view of the possibility that the suspect might at some later date come up once more before the tribunal, when naturally his former offence would be legitimate evidence against him? Such is the line of argument in justification of the penalizing of the suspected, as well as the convicted. The suspect is indeed guilty, not of the major offence of actual heresy, but of a minor offence of misdemeanour, improper or at least imprudent behaviour, unbecoming to a good Catholic—an offence legitimately dealt with by the tribunal concerned with heresy.