Thus the new doctrine was not at all proven at that time, as could be easily shown by its opponents; although it cannot be denied that they did not always enter into the discussion with impartiality. The astronomer, _Secchi_, testifies that “none of the real arguments for the rotary motion of the earth was known at _Galileo’s_ time, also direct proofs for the progressive movement of the earth around the sun were lacking at that time” (_Grisar_, 30). Another famous astronomer, _Schiaparelli_, writes: “In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the Ptolemaic as well as the Copernican system could serve for the description of phenomena; geometrically they were equivalent to each other and to _Tycho’s_ eclectic system” (_Schiaparelli_, Die Vorläufer des Copernicus im Altertum (German, 1876), 86). Hence no direct evidence could be pleaded against the decision of the Congregation, not even _Galileo_ had that evidence. At any rate no judge who observed his demeanour at the trial could have suspected _Galileo_ of coming in conflict with his conscience by swearing off the theory. For this reason it would be wrong to call _Galileo_ a martyr for science, because he did not suffer any martyrdom. He has seen neither rack nor prison. But he was not a martyr chiefly for the reason that he could not have had any scientific conviction, apart from the fact that he did not claim any such conviction, even denied it expressly. No wonder, then, that the heliocentric system had considerable opponents at that time; no wonder the opposite view was even the prevalent one. _A. Tanner_ wrote in 1626: “_Ita habet communis ac certa omnium theologorum ac philosophorum naturalium sentia_” (Theol. Schol. I, disp. 6, q. 4., dub. 3). Had valid argument been brought forth there never would have been a _Galileo_ case. In this respect a passage from a letter of _Bellarmin_ deserves attention: “If it could be really demonstrated that the sun be in the centre of the world ... then we would have to proceed quite cautiously in explaining the apparently opposite passages in the Scriptures, we would rather have to say that we do not understand them, than to say of things demonstrated that they are false” (to _Foscarini_, April 12, 1615). The Cardinals of that time could not be expected to anticipate the knowledge of a later period. They had to consult the judgment of their contemporaneous savants. When seeing the majority of them sharply rejecting the new theory and refuting the arguments of their opponents, it is little wonder that the Cardinals could not overcome their theological scruples.