But such a reply, which would have satisfied a more commonplace mind, has in it nothing brilliant and striking.

I cannot but think that Jesus shows a vain conceit in the cleverness of his answer: I do not think it so likely to have been a conscious evasion.

But neither does his rebuke of the questioners at all commend itself to me.

How can any man assume to be an authoritative teacher, and then claim that men shall not put his wisdom to the proof?
Was it not their _duty_ to do so?
And when, in result, the trial has proved the defect of his wisdom, did they not perform a useful public service?
In truth, I cannot see the Model Man in his rebuke .-- Let not my friend say that the error was merely intellectual: blundering self-sufficiency is a moral weakness.
I might go into detail concerning other discourses, where error and arrogance appear to me combined.

But, not to be tedious,--in general I must complain that Jesus purposely adopted an enigmatical and pretentious style of teaching, unintelligible to his hearers, and needing explanation in private.