St.Luke could not be otherwise than aware of the answer of Jesus Christ, when he rebuked the person for giving him the title of good, because he was one of the evangelists, who[48] recorded it, and St.Paul could not have been otherwise than aware of it also, on account of his intimacy with St.Luke, as well as from other causes.
[Footnote 48: Luke xviii, 18.] 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.