Hebrews 12:16-17

Μή τις πόρνος ἢ βέβηλος ὡς ᾿Ησαῦ, ὅς ἀντὶ βρώσεως μιᾶς ἀπέδοτο τὰ πρωτοτόκια αὑτοῦ· ἴστε γὰρ ὅτι καὶ μετέπειτα θέλων κληρονομῆσαι τὴν εὐλογίαν ἀπεδοκιμάσθη· μετανοίας γὰγ τόπον οὐχ εὗρε, καίπερ μετὰ δακρύων ἐκζητήσας αὐτήν.

Μή τις πόρνος. Syr., “lest any man should be found among you who is a fornicator.” ῎Η βέζηλος. Syr., ורְפֵא, and “fainting,” or a backslider. ᾿Αντὶ βρώσεως μιᾶς. Vulg., “propter unam escam.” Rhem., “one dish of meat.” Bez., “uno edulio;” “one morsel,” something to be eaten at once. We say, “one morsel of meat;” but it was “broth,” which is no less “edulium” than meat.”

῎Ιστε γάρ. Vulg., “scitote enim.” “For know ye,” imperatively. “For ye do know.” Syr., יָרְעִין אַנְתּוּן, “you are knowing of it.”

Hebrews 12:16. Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.

The apostle proceeds to give other instances of such evils as whereby Christian societies would be corrupted, and way made for total apostasy; which were to be diligently heeded and carefully watched against. And the end hereof is, that either such evils may be prevented, or those who are guilty of them be recovered, (the difficulty whereof in the latter instance is declared), or be cast out of the church, that it be not defiled; which are the ends of this inspection.

He puts together “fornication” and “profaneness;” and that probably for these three reasons:

1. Because they are, as it were, the heads of the two sorts of sins that men may be guilty of, namely, sins of the flesh, and sins of the mind, Ephesians 2:3.

2. Because they usually go together. Fornicators, that is, those who are habitually so, do always grow profane; and profane persons, of all other sins, are apt to set light by fornication. These things are written with the beams of the sun in the days wherein we live.

3. They are the especial sins whose relinquishment by sincere repentance is most rare. Few fornicators or profane persons do ever come to repentance.

It is one of these alone, namely, profaneness, whereof we have an instance in Esau. The Scripture mentioneth nothing of his fornication. His taking of wives from among the Hittites, who seem to have been proud, evil, idolatrous persons, in that they were “a grief of mind,” or a bitter provocation, “unto Isaac and to Rebekah,” Genesis 26:34-35,

cannot be called fornication, as the sense of the word was then restrained, when the evil of polygamy was not known.

There is in the words,

1. The evils to be watched against, in the way and manner before declared.

2. An effectual motive to abstain from the latter of them, taken from the example of one who was guilty of it, and the success of that guilt; which was Esau.

3. In that example we may observe,

(1.) That he is charged with this sin of profaneness;

(2.) The way whereby he manifested himself so to be, or wherein his profaneness did consist;

(3.) The issue of it;

(4.) His vain attempt to recover himself from that condition whereinto he was cast by his profaneness: all which must be opened.

1. The first evil mentioned is “fornication.” But the caution is given, as unto the church, with respect unto persons in the first place: “That there be no fornicator.” Reference is had unto the former charge: ‘Look ye to it diligently, that there be no fornicator in your society. Take care that no persons fall into that sin; or if they do, let them be removed from among you. The sin is evil unto them, but the communion of their persons is evil unto you.' Now, because the apostle placeth this evil, with that which follows, at the door of final apostasy, and doth more than intimate the difficulty, if not the moral impossibility, of the recovery of those who are guilty of them, we must inquire into the nature of it, and thereon its danger. And,

(1.) This sin is most directly and particularly opposite unto that holiness which he is exhorting them unto, as that without which they shall not see the LORD. And some do judge, that by “holiness” in that place, the contrary habit unto fornication is intended. However, this is peculiarly opposite unto gospel holiness and sanctification, as the apostle declares, 1 Corinthians 6:18-20. And it is that sin which men who are forsaking the profession of holiness do usually fall into, as experience testifieth.

(2.) Though here and elsewhere the sin of fornication be severely interdicted, yet in this place the apostle doth not intend every such person as may, through temptation, be surprised into that sin, nor will one fact give this denomination; but those who live in this sin, who are fornicators habitually, such as are placed at the head of them that shall never inherit the kingdom of God, 1 Corinthians 6:9. Such are to be excluded out of the church, as a certain pledge and token of their exclusion out of heaven. It is no wonder, therefore, if the apostle intimates a great difficulty of the recovery of such.

(3.) Under this name of “fornicator,” or fornication, all sins of the same kind are intended. For the Scripture calls all conjunction with women, not in lawful marriage, by the name of fornication, 1 Corinthians 5:9-12; Eph 5:5; 1 Timothy 1:10. So that by “fornicators,” whoremongers and adulterers, as it is expressed, Hebrews 13:4, or all such as sin against their own bodies, be it in or out of the state of wedlock, be it with single or married persons, are intended. Wherefore the warning doth not respect the practice of the Gentiles at that time, wherein the fornication of single persons was lightly set by; nor the licentiousness of the Jews, who thought it no sin to accompany with a heathen, at least if she were not in wedlock; but it is general, as unto all who are so guilty of uncleanness as to come under this denomination.

(4.) This is a sin, which when men are habitually given up unto, they are never, or very rarely, recovered from it. When any sensual lust hath obtained a habitual predominancy in any, it doth contract so intimate a league with the flesh, as it is hardly eradicated. Such sins do usually keep men secure unto the future judgment,. Hence God, for the punishment of idolatry, gave some up unto uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts, Romans 1:24-26, namely, that by them they might be secured unto that eternal vengeance which they had deserved.

(5.) There is no sort of sinners that would be so scandalous unto churches, should they be tolerated in them, as fornicators. And therefore the Pagans endeavored, in the utmost of their malice and false accusations, to fasten the charge of adulteries, incests, promiscuous lusts and uncleanness, on Christians in their assemblies. For they knew full well, that let them pretend what else they pleased, if they could fix this stain upon them, they would be the common hatred and scorn of mankind. For the higher men's pretences are unto God and religion, if they issue in such vile lusts, they are the more contemptible, and the more to be abhorred. Whereas, therefore, the church doth make a peculiar profession of a separation and dedication unto God, in holiness, purity of heart and life, nothing can be a greater reproach unto it than that fornicators should be found in its communion. And the carelessness of the visible church herein for some ages, suffering licentiousness of life in the lusts of the flesh to diffuse itself greatly amongst its members, being promoted in the clergy by an interdiction of lawful marriage unto them, proved its ruin. And,

Obs. 1. That church which tolerates in its communion men living in such gross sins as fornication, is utterly, as unto its discipline, departed from the rule of the gospel. And it is also hence evident, that,

Obs. 2. Apostatizing professors are prone to sins of uncleanness. For being overcome of the flesh, and brought into bondage, as 2 Peter 2:19, they are slaves and debtors unto it, to serve it in the lusts of uncleanness.

2. The second evil to be watched against is “profaneness;” or that there be no profane person among them. For it is persons that are firstly intended, as is evident in the instance of Esau. To be “profane,” may be taken passively or actively. In the first sense, it is a person or place separated and cast out from the society of things sacred. So holy things are said to be profaned, when men take off the veneration that is due unto them, and expose them to common use or contempt. “To profane,” is to violate, to corrupt, to prostitute to common use, things sacred and holy, either in their nature or by divine institution. “Profane” actively, is one that despiseth, sets light by, or contemneth sacred things. Such as mock at religion, or who lightly regard its promises and threatenings, who despise or neglect its worship, who speak irreverently of its concerns, we call profane persons; and such they are, and such the world is filled withal at this day.

This profaneness is the last step of entrance into final apostasy. When men, from professors of religion, become despisers of and scoffers at it, their state is dangerous, if not irrecoverable.

3. An instance of this evil is given us in Esau: “A profane person, as Esau.” ‘That is,'say some, ‘he was the type of a profane person; it doth not appear that he was such himself.'But the apostle calls him expressly, a “profane person,” and declares how he evidenced himself so to be, or wherein his profaneness did consist. And the truth is, there are very few in the Scripture concerning whom more evidences are given of their being reprobates. And this should warn all men not to trust unto the outward privileges of the church. He was the first-born of Isaac, circumcised according to the law of that ordinance, and partaker in all the worship of God in that holy family; yet an outcast from the covenant of grace and the promise thereof.

4. The way whereby he exerted and manifested his profaneness is declared: “Who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.” Many expositors, in the consideration of the sin of Esau, as it is recorded, Genesis 25:29-34, reflect on many crimes in him, especially intemperance and gluttony; as far as I can see, without cause. His desire of food from his own brother, when he was hungry and faint, might be harmless. But he fell into his sin on the occasion that then fell out; which the apostle here reports as unto the matter of fact, and chargeth on profaneness. The matter of fact is known, and we must inquire wherein his profaneness acted itself. And it did so,

(1.) In a readiness to part with his birthright, with whatsoever was contained in it and annexed unto it. Though I suppose he was then very young, for the story is added immediately after these words, “And the boys grew,” verse 27; yet being bred in the family of Isaac, he could not but know what did belong to that birthright, and what was annexed unto it by divine institution. And whereas, as we shall see, this had something in it that was sacred, the undervaluing it was a high profaneness; we must inquire hereon, what this birthright was, and how he sold it, and wherein he manifested himself to be profane thereby. He sold τὰ πρωτοτόκια αὑτοῦ, “suum jus primogeniti,” Bez;. “his right of the first-born.” “Jus primogeniturae suae, “the right of his own primogeniture;” the things belonging unto him as the first-born.

It is evident in the Scripture, that there were many rights and privileges of primogeniture in the church; some of them arising from the light of nature, and so common amongst all mankind; and some of them of divine institution.

Among these, the Jews, many of them, do reckon the priesthood; and they are followed herein by most of our expositors. But I am much mistaken if, by “the priesthood of the first-born,” the Jews intend any thing but their dedication unto God by virtue of the law of the sanctification of every male that opened the womb, Exodus 13:2; Exodus 22:29; Exodus 34:19: whence they were changed for the Levites, who were taken into the sacred office, Numbers 8:16-18. The priesthood, therefore, being settled in that tribe, which God took in exchange for the first-born, who were dedicated by the law of opening the womb, they called their state a priesthood. But it doth not appear that there was any ordinary office of the priesthood until the institution of that of Aaron, to be typical of the priesthood of Christ; only there was one person before extraordinarily called unto that office, unto the same purpose, namely, Melchizedek. But the reader, if he please, may consult our Exercitations on the Priesthood of Christ, prefixed unto the second volume of this Exposition, where these things are handled at large, Exercitations 25-34., I shall not therefore admit this among the privileges of the birthright, and can give arguments sufficient to disprove it. But this is not a place to insist on these things.

A double portion of the paternal inheritance was ascertained unto the first- born by the law, Deuteronomy 21:17. And this was but the determination of the light of nature unto a certain measure; for a natural reason is given for it: “He is the beginning of his strength: the right of the first-born is his.” So when Reuben forfeited his birthright, the double portion was given unto Joseph and his sons, 1 Chronicles 5:1. This right, therefore, was certainly sold, what lay in him, by Esau.

There was also in it a right of rule and government, ever the rest of the children of the family; which was transferred to Judah on the forfeiture made by Reuben, 1 Chronicles 5:2. And therefore when Isaac had transferred the birthright and blessing unto Jacob, he tells Esau, “I have made him thy lord, and all his brethren have I given to him for servants,” Genesis 27:37.

These things did ordinarily, yea constantly, belong unto the firstborn. [But moreover, there was a blessing that from Abraham ran in the patriarchal line, which was communicated from father unto son, containing an enclosure of all church privileges, and the preservation of the promised Seed. This, I confess, was distinct from the birthright, and so it was distinguished by Esau, who in his complaint of his brother, cried out,

“He hath supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing,” Genesis 27:36.

But although it was not annexed inseparably unto the birthright, yet there was a just expectation that it should be conveyed according to the primogeniture. Hence not only Esau calls it his blessing, “He hath taken away my blessing,” verse 36, but Isaac calls it so too, “He hath taken away thy blessing,” verse 35. It was not his by divine destination, as appeared in the issue; nor had he made it his by obtaining an especial interest in the promise by faith, for he had it not; but in the ordinary course it was to be his, and in the purpose of his father it was his, and so in his own expectation: but God cut off the line of succession herein, and gave it unto Jacob.

Now, as Jacob, in his whole design, aimed not at personal riches and power, wherein he was contented to see his brother far exceed him, as he did; but at an inheritance of the patriarchal blessing, wherein the promised Seed and the church-state were contained, whereinto the birthright was an outward entrance, a sign and pledge of it: so Esau, by selling his birthright, did virtually renounce his right unto the blessing, which he thought annexed thereunto.

(2.) But it may be inquired how he sold this birthright, or how he could sell that which was not in his own power. The word is ἀπέδοτο, “he gave away,” or “he gave up; ” but whereas he did it on a price which he esteemed a valuable consideration for it, and did make an express bargain about it, the sense intended in the word is, that he sold it, as it is expressed, Genesis 25:33.

He could not by any contract change the course of nature, that he who was the first-born should really not be so; but it was his right by virtue thereof that he parted withal. Now, although this was not absolute, or immediately vested in him, seeing the father, yet living, might on just causes disinherit the first-born, as Jacob did Reuben; yet he had a right unto it, “jus ad rein,” and an assured interest in it, as unto his father's affections. This he renounced; and hereby also he virtually parted with the blessing. But this he directly apprehended not. Wherefore although he never sought the recovery of the birthright, whose renunciation he had confirmed with an oath, yet he hoped that he might retain the blessing still.

(3.) It is evident how in all this action he carried it profanely. For,

[1.] He discovered an easiness and readiness to part with his birthright, and all that was annexed thereunto by divine institution. Had he placed his principal interest therein, had he considered aright the privilege of it, had he by faith entertained the promise that went along with it, he would not have been so facile, nor so easily surprised into a renouncing of it. But being a man given wholly to his pleasures, and the love of present things, he seems scarce ever to have entertained serious thoughts about what it was significant of, in things spiritual and heavenly.

[2.] In that he did it on so slight an occasion, and valued it at so small a rate as one “mess of pottage,” or one “morsel of meat;” that is, of what was to be eaten.

[3.] In that, without further deliberation, he confirmed the sale with a solemn oath; whereby he discovered the highest contempt of what he had parted withal.

[4.] In his regardlessness of what he had done, after the power of his present temptation was over: for it is said, “He did eat and drink, and rose up and went his way,” as a man utterly unconcerned in what he had done; whereon the Holy Ghost adds this censure, “Thus Esau despised his birthright.” He did not only sell it, but despised it, Genesis 25:31-34.

This was the profaneness of Esau. And we may observe, that,

Obs. 3. Evil examples proposed in Scripture-light, divested of all colors and pretences, laid open in their roots and causes, are effcacious warnings unto believers to abstain from all occasions leading unto the like evils, and much more from the evils themselves. To this end is the sin of Esau here called over.

Obs. 4. Where there is in any a latent predominant principle of profaneness, a sudden temptation or trial will let it out unto the greatest evils, as it was with Esau; and we see it daily verified to amazement.

Obs. 5. This principle of profaneness, in preferring the morsels of this world before the birthright privileges of the church, is that which at this day threatens the present ruin of religion. What is it that makes so many forsake their profession in a time of trial or persecution? It is because they will not be hungry for the gospel; they will have their morsels, which they prefer before the truth and privileges thereof. What makes the profession of religion in some nations to totter at this day? Is it not because of the morsels of outward peace, with, it may be, dignities and preferments that lie on the other side, and some present hunger or supposed want of earthly things, that they may fall into? Let men pretend what they please, it is from a spirit of profaneness that they forsake the privileges and assemblies of the church for any outward advantage; and what will be their success, we shall see in the next verse.

Hebrews 12:17. “For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place for repenance, though he sought it carefully with tears.”

1. The efficacy of the example proposed consists in the due consideration of the consequent of the sin exemplified. ‘Such was the sin of Esau, which ye ought to watch against in yourselves and others; for ye know what ensued thereon.'This the particle, “for,” declares to be the reason of the following account of it.

2. The way is expressed whereby they understood this consequent of Esau's sin: “Ye know.” They knew it from the Scripture, where it is recorded. He supposeth them acquainted with the Scriptures, and what is contained in them; as they were; in like manner as he says of Timothy, 2 Timothy 3:15; as it is the duty of all Christians to be. Besides, there is a peculiar force of persuasion and conviction, when we argue from men's own knowledge and concessions. ‘Ye know this yourselves; ye know it full well from the Scripture, and therefore let it be of great weight and consideration with you.'

3. The general force of the exhortation from the consideration of the event of Esau's profaneness, is taken from the surprisal that befell him when he found what his sin had brought him unto. For he is represented as a man under great amazement, as if he had little thought to fall into such a condition. And thus at one time or another it will befall all profane persons, who have refused the mercy and privileges of the gospel; they shall at one time or other fall under dreadful surprisals, in life, or at death, or at the last day. Then shall they see the horror of those crimes which before they made nothing of. Wherefore the Hebrews are here warned, and all professors of the gospel with them, that they decline not from their profession, lest they fall into the like surprisals, when it is too late to seek for deliverance out of them.

4. What he did upon this surprisal, with the effects of it, are declared,

(1.) The time wherein he did it is noted; it was “afterward.” This afterward was not less, perhaps, than forty or fifty years. For he sold his birthright when he was young; now, when he designed the receiving of the blessing, Isaac was old, namely, about an hundred and forty years old, Genesis 27:2. So long did he live in his sin, without any sense of it or repentance for it. Things went prosperously with him in the world, and he had no regard in the least of what he had done, nor of what would be the end of it. But falling now into a new distress, it fills him with perplexity. And so it is with all secure sinners. Whilst things go prosperously with them, they can continue without remorse; but at one time or other their iniquity will find them out, Genesis 42:21-22.

(2.) What he designed; and that was, to inherit the blessing: “He would have inherited the blessing.” He esteemed himself the presumptive heir of the patriarchal blessing, and knew not that he had virtually renounced it, and meritoriously lost it, by selling his birthright. So the apostle here distinguisheth between the birthright and the blessing. He “sold” birthright, but would have inherited the blessing; esteemed it to belong unto him by right of inheritance, when he had himself destroyed that right. So he distinguished himself: “He took away my birthright; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing,” Genesis 27:36. He had, no doubt, an apprehension that there were many excellent things contained in it; especially, a flourishing state and condition in this world, in a multiplication of posterity, and power over enemies, which were express in the promise made unto Abraham, Genesis 22:17. This made him put in his claim for the blessing, without the least sense of the spiritual privileges of it; for he was a “profane person.” And herein he was a type of the unbelieving Jews at that time; for they adhered to the outward things of the blessing, the carcass of it, unto the rejection of Him who was the whole life, soul, and power of it. And it is not unusual, that men should earnestly desire the outward privileges of the church, who value not the inward grace and power of them; but they are profane persona

(3.) The event of this attempt was, that “he was rejected.” “He was reprobated.” So translators generally. Not that his eternal reprobation is hereby intended, (but this open, solemn rejection of him from the covenant of God, and the blessings thereof, was an evidence of his being reprobated of God, whence he is proposed as the type of reprobates, Romans 9:11-12), but the refusal of his father to give him the patriarchal blessing is that which is here intended.

(4.) There is his behavior under this rejection, and the event thereof: “He sought it diligently with tears,” but “he found no place of repentance.” For that which the apostle intends fell out after his rejection, when his father had declared unto him that his blessing was gone for ever, Genesis 27:33-38. It is all one whether we refer αὐτήν, in the close of the verse, unto the remote antecedent, “the blessing,” or unto the next, which is “repentance;” for that which he sought for in repentance, namely, the repentance of his father, or the change of his mind, was the blessing also. For it is now generally agreed by all, that there is nothing in the words which should in the least intimate that he sought of God the grace of repentance; nor is there any thing in the record that looks that way. And I shall rather interpret this word, with Beza, of the blessing, than of the repentance of Isaac; because his cry in the story was immediately and directly for the blessing.

(5.) The manner how he sought the blessing, is, that “he did it diligently with tears.” So the apostle expresseth the record, Genesis 27:38, “And Esau said unto his father, Hast thou but one blessing, my father? bless me, even me also, O my father. And Esau lifted up his voice and wept:” as those also of verse 34. No man, considering the intense affections that were between them, can express that conflict of nature which was on this occasion between Isaac and Esau. But in the one, grace and submission unto the will of God overcame all natural reluctancy; in the other, resolution for further sin offered itself for relief, “he said in his heart that he would slay his brother,” verse 41. So it is in all like cases. Things that are most terrible and convulsive to nature, in them that believe, are brought into order in due time by grace and resignation unto the will of God; and on the other hand, sin, with its deceitful contrivances, will not cease to offer its reliefs unto unbelievers in distress, until all hopes are cut off and vanished for ever.

But because here is an appearance of somewhat more than ordinary severity, in the peremptory denial of a divine blessing unto one who so earnestly sought and cried for it, the manner of his seeking it must be considered. And,

[1.] He did it when it was too late. For he had not only forfeited his right unto it long before, and lived in impenitency under that forfeiture, but the sacred investiture of another in that blessing was solemnly past, which could not be recalled. So speaks Isaac even under his surprisal: “I have blessed him; yea, and he shall be blessed,” Genesis 27:33.

Whatever men may pretend, whatever presumptuous sinners may flatter themselves withal, there is a limited time of the dispensation of grace, beyond which men shall not be admitted unto a participation of it, nor shall ever use the right way of attaining it. And this they may do well to consider who spend their lives in continual procrastination of their conversion to God. They may live, yet their time may be past, and a caveat entered against them, that they shall never enter into God's rest. See Hebrews 3:11-15, with the exposition.

[2.] He sought it not at all in a due manner. Outward vehemency in expressions, and tears, may be influenced by such considerations as not to be an evidence of inward sincerity. He sought it not of God, but only of him that was the minister of it. And according to the law of God's institution, the ministers of gospel blessings may be limited from a communication of them; but there is no law or bounds put unto the infinite treasures of divine goodness, if application be made thereunto in a due manner. But he sought the end without the means: he would have the blessing, but he used not the means for the attaining of it; namely, faith and repentance. For notwithstanding all his sorrow and trouble upon his disappointment, he entertained no thought about any repentance in himself; for he immediately fell into a resolution to follow Cain in his rejection, and to kill his brother. Yet herein lies the great folly that the generality of men are betrayed into through the deceitfulness,of sin, namely, that they would have the end, the blessing of mercy and glory, without the use of the means, in faith, repentance, and obedience. But it is in vain to desire or endeavor a separation of those things which God, by an immutable constitution, hath conjoined and put together.

Lastly, The reason of this event is expressed: “He found no place for repentance.” That is, notwithstanding his pretended right, his claim of it, his earnestness with tears about it; notwithstanding the inexpressible affection of Isaac unto him, and his trembling surprisal at an apprehension that he had missed the blessing; yet Isaac did not, could not, might not, change his mind, or repent him of what he had done, in conferring the blessing on Jacob, which God approved of. This sad event had the profaneness of Esau. And we may observe,

Obs. 1. This example of Esau cuts off all hopes by outward privileges, where there is an inward profaneness of heart. He had as much to plead for the blessing, and as fair a probability for the attaining it, as ever any profane hypocrite can have in this world. And,

Obs. 2. Profane apostates have a limited season only, wherein the recovery of the blessing is possible. For although here be no intimation of a man's seeking of repentance from God in a due manner, and being rejected, which is contrary to the nature of God, who is a rewarder of all that diligently seek him, yet there is an indication of severity, in leaving men in an irrecoverable condition, even in this life, who are guilty of such provocations. ordinance for the preservation of them that believe, and the edification of the whole church, Romans 11:22.

Obs. 4. Sin may be the occasion of great sorrow, where there is no sorrow for sin; as it was with Esau. Men may rue that in the consequents, which yet they like well enough in the causes.

Obs. 5. No man knows whereunto a deliberate sin may lead him, nor what will be the event of it. Esau little thought, when he sold his birthright, that he had utterly forfeited the eternal blessing.

Obs. 6. Profaneness and despising spiritual privileges, is a sin that God at one time or other will testify his severity against; yea this, on many accounts, is the proper object of God's severity. It shall not be spared in the eldest son and most dearly beloved of an Isaac.

Obs. 7. Steadfastness in faith, with submission unto the will of God, will establish the soul in those duties which are most irksome unto flesh and blood. Nothing could prevail with Isaac to change his mind, when he knew what was the will of God.