II. To the Initial Argument

88. To the argument [n.81] I say that receiving the Eucharist is not a sacrament, but is sacramental eating or perceiving; but baptism itself is a sacrament.

89. And if you argue that at least the priest administers the sacrament of the Eucharist to himself, therefore by parity of reasoning he can administer also the other [baptism to himself] - I reply: to administer the former sacrament is not a sacrament because that former sacrament does not consist in the using; but ‘the sacrament of baptism being administered’ is the sacrament of baptism. And the reason for the diversity is that the sacrament of baptism consists essentially in the using and not in the water (as was said in the preceding question [n.72]); but the Eucharist is something permanent, distinct from the using of the sacrament. So, although someone could be minister in the using of a permanent sacrament and minister of him who receives that use, yet this cannot be in a sacrament that essentially consists in the using.This difference between baptism and the Eucharist is real enough, but one might wonder why it entails that one cannot administer baptism to oneself, for one can certainly wash oneself and speak words at the same time. Perhaps the answer is that Scotus does not intend this difference to show that it is altogether impossible to administer baptism to oneself, but rather to show why Christ could reasonably choose not to allow self-baptism but could reasonably choose to allow self-giving of the Eucharist. For the real reason self-baptizing is ruled out is Christ’s decision to rule it out, but this decision is well grounded in the reasons given in nn.84-87. Likewise, Christ could have decided to rule out self-giving of the Eucharist, but the difference of it from baptism as explained in nn.88-89 gave him good reason not to do so. ⁴¹ Hereby is plain the answer to the argument, because the case is not alike.