We cannot wonder that Albertus Magnus, and all who held the Christian faith, were alarmed by doctrine of this kind and fiercely opposed it. The orthodox beliefs of Christians, Jews, and Mohammedans alike were declared false by this bold writer, whom several expressions which we have embodied in the above summary show clearly to have been Averroës, and not Michael Scot. In one passage indeed we seem to discover what may have suggested the widely spread fable that Frederick II., or Scot, or some other of their company and party, had produced an atheistic work called _De Tribus Impostoribus_. The imputation was a false one, yet most natural were the feelings of prejudice which the publication of this philosophy aroused against the great Emperor and Michael Scot who had acted as his agent in the matter. Pursuing our investigation of the works which came from the Toledan College we discover that these were not confined to the books of Aristotle already noticed, but that the translators took a wider range in their labours. The Venice manuscript of Averroës,[185] besides the _De Coelo et Mundo_, the _De Anima_, the _Meteora_, the _De Substantia Orbis_, the _De Generatione et Corruptione_, and the _Parva Naturalia_, contains several other treatises that deserve attention. Two of these were compositions of Averroës; the one a commentary on the book of Proclus, _De Causis_, then commonly ascribed to Aristotle,[186] and the other an independent work, as it would seem, bearing the following title: ‘Qualiter intellectus naturalis conjungitur Intelligentiae abstractae,’ in short a treatise on the _ittisal_. The volume also contains the Latin version of a book by the Rabbi Moses Maimonides, entitled ‘De Deo Benedicto, quod non est Corpus, nec Virtus in Corpore.’[187] Maimonides, like Averroës, was a native of Cordova, and hence no doubt arose the interest that was felt in his works by the Toledan translators. That the Venice manuscript is to be understood as a collection of the versions which came from that school appears plainly in the dedication to Stephen of Provins. This is generally prefixed to the _De Coelo et Mundo_, thus forming an introduction to the versions which follow; but here it has been placed at the end of the volume, occurring immediately after the short article _De Vita Aristotelis_ which closes the whole series. We may see in this fact a certain probability that some at least of these additional versions may have been the work of Michael Scot himself. Nor will the five years which he spent at Toledo appear too scant a space of time for the production of the whole body of the Latin Averroës and something more, when we remember the ample and able assistance he enjoyed in the prosecution of his labours as a translator.