physical act, not however a metaphysical one, which is the act of essence.

Q. 3. Does prime matter have its own existence distinct from the existence of the form? They respond: Yes; for essence and existence are not distinguished; therefore, since prime matter has its own essence really distinct from the essence of the form, it will also have its own existence really distinct from the existence of the form. Add that prime matter exists actually independently of the existence of the form; therefore it also exists independently of the existence of the form and of the composite.

Q. 4. Can prime matter exist without any form? They respond: Not even supernaturally; since from this would arise a miracle of nature, which is degrading: 1. because of a certain defect in the matter contrary to its requirement. 2. Because of
1st assumption

the good excluded against the requirement of nature, replaced by another equal or at least physically good thing, which is incompensable cannot be weighed against or substituted for in respect to the excluded good.

Q. 5. Can substantial forms inform the same part of matter? They respond: No, and indeed according to some, not even by the absolute power of GOD; since it is repugnant to this that there be a substantial form which, through its union with matter, does not constitute the quiddity and essence of the thing; for the final form alone would constitute it, and not the first.

Q. 6. Are substantial forms drawn out from the potency of Matter? They respond: Yes; for matter is mere potency from which the act must be drawn out, insofar as some disposition is gradually introduced into it, to the ultimate perfection of which the form is immediately drawn out, i.e., produced.

POINT II.

The opinion of our Chemists is reported.

In order that the mind of our Chemists may be rightly understood, they assume 1. that the first are the Alchemists Chemists, just like the pure Galenists,