Where any such are evident, we suppose the other will not disagree about an implicit covenant, if they mean by an implicit covenant that which hath the substance of a covenant in it some way discernible, though it be not so formal or orderly as it should be. But such an implicit [covenant] as is no way explicit is no better than a Popish implicit faith (as some of us conceive) and a mere fiction, or as that which should be a marriage covenant which is no way explicit. _Young men._--Wherein standeth the difference between the rigid Brownists and Separatists and others, as we observe our ministers in their writings and sermons to distinguish them? _Ancient men._--The name of Brownists is but a nickname, as Puritan and Huguenot, &c., and therefore they do not amiss to decline the odium of it in what they may. But by the rigidness of Separation they do not so much mean the difference, for our churches here in New England do the same thing under the name of _secession_ from the corruptions found amongst them, as the other did under the name or term of _separation_ from them. Only this declines the odium the better. See Reverend Mr. Cotton’s Answer to Mr. Baylie, page the 14th. That some which were termed Separatists, out of some mistake and heat of zeal, forbore communion in lawful things with other godly persons, as prayer and hearing of the word, may be seen in what that worthy man, Mr. Robinson, hath published in dislike thereof. _Young men._--We are well satisfied in what you have said. But they differ also about synods.