Neither has this answer been considered as satisfactory for another reason.  It has been presumed that the expressions of excellent and of noble were established titles of rank, and if an evangelist and an apostle used them, they could not be objectionable if used by others.  But let us admit for a moment, that they were titles of rank.  How happens it that St. Paul, when he was before Festus, and not in a judicial capacity (for he had been reserved for Caesar’s tribunal) should have given him this epithet of noble; and that, when summoned before Felix, and this in a judicial capacity, he should have omitted it?  This application of it to the one and not to the other, either implies that it was no title, or, if it was a title as we have supposed, that St. Paul had some reason for this partial use of it.  And in this case, no better reason can be given, than that suggested by Barclay.  St. Paul knew that Festus had done his duty.  He knew, on the other hand, the abandoned character of Felix.  The latter was then living, as Josephus relates, in open adultery with Drusilla, who had been married to Azis, and brought away from her husband by the help of Simon a Magician; and this circumstance probably gave occasion to Paul to dwell upon temperance, or continence as the word might be rendered, among other subjects, when he made Felix tremble.  But, besides this, he must have known the general character of a man, of whom Tacitus complained, that “his government was distinguished by[49] servility and every species of cruelty and lust.”—­

[Footnote 49:  “Per omnem Saevitiam et Libidinem jus regium servili ingenio exercuit.”]

If therefore the epithet of noble was an established title for those Romans, who held the government of Judea, the giving of it to one, and the omission of it to the other, would probably shew the discrimination of St. Paul as a Christian, that he had no objection to give it, where it could be applied with truth, but that he refused it, when it was not applicable to the living character.

But that the expression of excellent or of noble was any title at all, there is no evidence to shew.  And first, let us examine the word, which was used upon this occasion.  The [50]original Greek word has no meaning as a title in any Lexicon that I have seen.  It relates both to personal and civil power, and in a secondary sense, to the strength and disposition of the mind.  It occurs but in four places in the New Testament.  In two of these it is translated excellent and in the others noble.  But Gilbert Wakefield, one of our best scholars has expunged the word noble, and substituted excellent throughout.  Indeed of all the meanings of this word noble is the least proper.  No judgment therefore can be pronounced in favour of a title by any analysis of the word.

[Footnote 50:  [Greek:  kralistos]]