If, then, a company of believers in China might, in accordance with the spirit of the New Testament, appoint an administrator of the ordinances, the little band of Baptists at Providence were fully authorized to do it.[209] No minister could have been obtained, in America, to baptize Mr. Williams. The case was one of obvious necessity, and the validity of the baptism cannot be denied, without rejecting the fundamental principle, on which dissenting churches rest, that all the ecclesiastical power on earth resides ultimately in the church, and that she is authorized to adopt any measures, not repugnant to the Scriptures, which may be necessary for her preservation and prosperity. Whatever the New Testament has positively prescribed, must of course be strictly obeyed. In regard to those whom Mr. Williams baptized, there can be no dispute. He was a clergyman of the Church of England, and Pedobaptists must admit, that immersion, administered by him, was Christian baptism. Their own ministers not unfrequently administer the rite in this manner, and the persons thus baptized are received as regular members of their churches.[210] At what time, and under what circumstances, Mr. Williams left the church, has been a vexed question among writers. Callender, (p. 56,) expresses a doubt, whether Mr. Williams ever belonged to the church, and adds: “The most ancient inhabitants now alive, some of them above eighty years old, and who personally knew Mr. Williams, and were well acquainted with many of the original settlers, never heard that Mr. Williams formed the Baptist church there, but always understood, that Mr. Brown, Mr. Wickenden, Mr. Dexter, Mr. Olney, Mr. Tillinghast, &c. were the first founders of that church.” But Mr. Callender was under a mistake, and, according to Mr. Backus,[211] he was afterwards convinced of his error. The records of the church, as quoted by Mr. Benedict (vol. i. p. 476,) assert, that “Mr. Williams held his pastoral office about four years, and then resigned the same to Mr. Brown and Mr. Wickenden, and went to England, to solicit the first charter.” This statement, also, is incorrect. Winthrop (vol. i. p. 307,) says, under the date of June or July, 1639: “At Providence, matters went on after the old manner. Mr. Williams and many of his company a few months since were in all haste re-baptized; and denied communion with all others; and now he was come to question his second baptism, not being able to derive the authority of it from the apostles, otherwise than by the ministers of England, (whom he judged to be ill authority) so as he conceived God would raise up some apostolic power. Therefore he bent himself that way, expecting (as was supposed) to become an apostle; and having a little before refused communion with all, save his own wife, now he would preach to and pray with all comers. Whereupon some of his followers left him and returned back from whence they went.”