Three days after the first examination the three counsellors of the Inquisition, Augustine Oregius, Melchior Inchofer, and Zacharias Pasqualigus delivered their opinions about the trial of Galileo. Oregius declared that “in the book superscribed ‘Dialogues of Galileo Galilei,’ the doctrine which teaches that the earth moves and that the sun is stationary is _maintained_ and _defended_.” Inchofer’s statements (he drew up two) declared that “Galileo had not only taught and defended that view, but rendered it very suspicious that he was inclined to it, and even held it to this day.” Both these attestations were supported by a memorial, in which the opinions given were founded on passages quoted from the “Dialogues.”[362] The first sought to prove that Galileo in his book had treated the stability of the sun and its central position in the universe, not as a hypothesis, but in a definite manner; the second, that in it Galileo had taught, defended, and held the doctrine of the earth’s motion round the sun. Zacharias Pasqualigus gave in three opinions. In the first he expresses his view that Galileo, by the publication of his “Dialogues,” had infringed the order given him by the Holy Office not in any way to hold the Copernican Opinion, nor to teach nor defend it in writing or speaking, in respect to _teaching_ and _defending_, and it was very suspicious that he _held_ it. In his second opinion, Pasqualigus argues, by quoting passages from the “Dialogues,”[363] that although in the beginning of the book Galileo had stated that he should treat the doctrine of the double motion only as a hypothesis, he had in the course of it departed from hypothetical language, and sought to prove it by decisive arguments. Finally, in his third opinion, Pasqualigus recurs to the special prohibition of 1616, and argues at length that Galileo has overstepped it both as regards teaching and defending, and is very strongly open to the suspicion of holding it.[364] By these declarations Galileo’s cause was as good as decided. His transgression of the command of the Holy Office, and particularly of the special prohibition of 26th February, 1616, was proved beyond a doubt. Of his guilt there could be no question—neither could there be any of the penalty. The prolonged deprivation of exercise in the open air, which had been so essential to the old man’s health,[365] combined with great mental agitation, at length threw him on a sick bed. He wrote on 23rd April to Geri Bocchineri:—