The rcsponsibilities of leading rninds in so ciety are wcitfhty. They see how blindly mu'titndes rely upon Iheir g-ui'ance - wha implicit fait h they repose in their sayine - and it were well ifin viev of thi?, they would fiequpntly subinit iheir opinions to revisiÃ³n and carcfully re -examine the grounds on which they rsst Progress is the law of the age. Ã¯t is absurd to suppose that all tmth has been discov ered. or all modes of app'ying it exhausted Henee, while we may reverÃ© men of a past generation, stil! lingering' among up, for their rich menial endowments nrd many virtues, i' :s unwise to take iheir opinionR on tru6t. On sonip pnints the prosumpiion i?, that they wil be in error, cspecially if men of strong intellects and stubborn wills. In facf, these very qaalities which fitted them for 'leaders in the past grneraÃ¼on. by stercolyping' their earl beliefs, incapacÃtate them ior leadership in thÃ¯s genera'ion. John Quincy Adams is an example of the irulh of this remark. He is a great man, a pnre patriot - but he belongs fo a fornier peri od. His vews of law?, constitutions anc policy took their shape anrl coloring from the public sentiment of his time, and such is the character of his mind, that age has but eerved to give to tho?e views the character offixcc beliefd. But will nny one say, that no advances have been made since his early prime, towards a jusler eppreciation of Principies anc sound Policv? .a.' For tliis rcason, gtfa? John Quincy Adams really i?, nnd dovotod as he hns shown himsplf oC late jrÃ©SrÃ¡ in hostilily to slavory, ihpre is no wnnt. of respect, in questioning'tne mun TU some or ais aoccrmes, or uic coundness of his policy, oti the question of slavery. One of tlie possnLc-s we iÃ¯aUciped in his speesh, with a view lo corament upon it, was the following: - --â â ' Spenking of Mie clausO 'in relation to the slave trade, Ã¯'Mr. Jidams said thai icicJccd and crimiiwl as Hits clause in the constiiution tras, hc had swbrn io suslain it, and he did svsUiin il bu his vote, heatvse he tcoidd nol viÃ³late a compact- that the laws of Godjcere iicperaiive, bvttluil tÃtere itere casen iÃ± tÃ¶hich (he lncs of God iccre set at hitngkt hy humtin compacts, of tphich ths was one."' Mr. Adams hpre dislincfly recojrn: zes the doctrine, tlmt Ihong'ri n humnn Jaw shall set at Pniicrlu the hv of God, end tlierefore be wicked and criminal, it is the duty of man toobev it. It is a doctrine whirh respect for Mr. Aclaras forbirls us to chnracferize in such languarrc ns we could wish; po oflÃ¨nfiveis it to Reason, so rcvÃ³llini;"' to the majesty of the Supreme Rnlor. It virtnnlly (Jethrones the Divine Lnvv GÃver, nnrl places a corrupt rnorÃ¼i] in n bisstÃ©a.d. Ie places a corrupt mortal in his stead. It assumes in fact, for man a prerogamraiive which does not beÃ¯nng to God himself, lint is, the power to chonos the eternnl naiure of Ãlight nnrl Wrange wliich is naked blnsphc my - or it nssumes that it mn be 7-ight for man unclcrceitain ci'cimst.anCes to rlo wrong - which is an absolute contradictio!). The voice of rendon, the voice of cor.gcienco, the mnjesty of God, Divine Revrlation, and the blood of all the martyrs ivbo have perished under Jewish fanaticism, and heathe'n snperstiÃ¯ion and christian intolcrance, choosiiig rotlier to obey God than man, cry out Ãn thunder-tones against the doctrine. Protestantism is n revolt against tbe claim of Infallibility set up by the CathoÃ¼c Church, its ruling elcmcnts are, the absolutey of God's law, and the absolute inviolabiliy of tlierighlsofconscience. Hut, ififfphce f Chureh infailibility, I must Bubmit to the Iaim of State infaÃlibility, whathÃ¡ve I gainedf have only exchanged tyrant3. The doctrine f Mr. Adams is an assertion ot infa'li- i'ity, precisely identical in principie, with at nf. church infailibility. Against both the onius of Protestantism vfrages deadÃy war, nd in so dolng, contends for the sacrednesa f conscience, the supremacy of the Almightyj ie true foundationB of morality. A chuich ia an organiza tion of corrupt and allible men, and poBsesses no qaalities which elong not to jts constituent elements. Ã¯hÃ¶ nfirmities artd vices of mam', can never make perfect A Btote is an prganization, uder another form, of corrupt and fallible men: nnd is chacacterized by the vices and virtues of ita constitnentF. Individualli iheso lay no claim to infallibity-'-cotfectocty they can have no better clahtj. The iaws ofone, he ordidances of the othef, for the sake of order, are to be reepecfed, when they do not conflict wilh the eto.lutev of the Supreme RuIer - but, when they cÃo eo conflict, the individual must ansert his independence, and matntain his alfegiance to Ã¶od, whatÃªtfÃ©r be the Otherwise, he Ã¼eifies man ;ind Jiumnnizes God". As to the binding1 nature of an oath, nx oÃ¡tti (o do ttrong, can be obligatory. 'Ã¯'ho men who bound themselves by an oth neither to eat nor drink tilJ ihey had murdeied Paul, wonld have added to their guilt by ita fulfilment.Oaths are for confÃrmatiorÃ. They but confirm prior obÃ¼g-atinns. They cannot .-=el them a6de. They Divine Law-Giver had PauFa enf mies under the perpetual pblrgatron ter do jastice. It was absurd anci wicked for them to eall God to witness their purposed dieregard of.thia bligalion; and the fulfilmertt of the oarh wouid only have added the crimirrality of consummaLibn to the wickednesB of in tention. Any other doctrine would pet k ifl the power of any man, at any time, by simply calling God to witness, to release himself from al! obiigafion to obey arÃ¯y of His lawsÃ We have done with this moTistrous doctrine. We hopothe Boston CourJer bÃundÃred in thus reportirtg Mr. Adams. But, wefear . it is all too true. Tho eame doctrine here broached, is the doctrine which has Ãed the Gazette, the Chronicle, arrd a Iarge portion of ihe press of the country, ta denounce the reso v lution of tho Btiffalo Convention. It is tima that it should be driven back to the Pit tvhence il ofiginated.