C. Scotus’ Own Opinion

292. To the question, as to the exposition of the negative part of it [sc. that nothing other than God is immutable, n.230], I reply: I concede the conclusions of those arguments [nn.275-291, 273, 268], although perhaps some of them would not so convince the philosophers that they could not reply, yet they are more probable than those adduced on behalf of the philosophers [nn.259-262], and some perhaps are necessary.

293. I say however, as to this part, that nothing else is immutable when speaking of the change that is called ‘turning’ [n.229], because nothing else is formally necessary.

For anything else whatever is mutable subjectively, save because of negative imperfection; for example, a final accident, which is capable of no perfection because of its own imperfection (as suppose it is a relation), is not mutable subjectively, because it cannot be the subject of anything, namely because it is imperfect negatively, that is, not capable of any perfection. But nothing other than God is, because of its own perfection, immutable, because if anything were such it would most of all be the first intelligence. But that intelligence is mutable from intellection to intellection; proof: for it can have intellection of any intelligible, because our intellect can have this, - but not one intellection of everything (from I d.2 nn.101, 125-129), nor an infinite number of intellections of all intelligibles, because then an intellect possessing all of them at once in act distinctly would seem to be infinite; therefore it can have intellection of one intelligible after another intelligible and after the intellection of another intelligible; therefore it is mutable.