This page states a view. It does not survey both sides. The evidence is in the dossiers it links to.
The other side is given its due in Part II, and what the page is not saying is set out in Part VII.Infants, children, adults. Immersion, pouring, sprinkling. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Rebaptism. Baptising again someone already baptised in the name of the Trinity.
“One Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5). “We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins” (the Nicene Creed).
The Church settled against rebaptism long ago and has held to it for some seventeen centuries: Stephen of Rome (c. 256), Arles (314), Augustine, Luther, Trent, and the Reformed confessions.
Rebaptism says God’s name, spoken over you with water at Christ’s command, did nothing.
The prodigal was not re-adopted. Peter was not rebaptised. Return to the baptism God already gave you.
The one who says it can be thrown away and done again.
Not the preachers, not the churches, not the candidates. The people baptised again acted in good faith on what they were taught. The criticism is of the teaching.
What this page is asking
The Spider is often called “against baptism.” The charge is usually made in sermons, and usually without naming anyone. A recent baptism service at a modern church, at which adults who had been baptised as infants were baptised again, put it this way:
“At that age, sometimes people may think, well, I’m all set. I was raised in a traditional Methodist family or etc. I don’t need to get any more immersion baptized. Isn’t it? People come to a conclusion and then parents are behind it. Oh no, you have been already baptized, you know. But I think they were very open to the Holy Spirit’s plan.”
Transcribed from the service. The same service called baptism “not an option,” and also taught that “water does not cleanse anybody from any sin.” No preacher, church or candidate is named on this page, and no names should be supplied or guessed.
The question, in a form that can be checked
Is it fair to call someone “against baptism” who accepts the baptism of infants, children and adults, by any mode, in the name of the Trinity? Do Scripture or the historic Church allow a person validly baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to be baptised again? What do Ephesians 4:5 and the Nicene Creed’s “one baptism for the remission of sins” mean for rebaptism? How did the early Church judge those who rebaptised: Cyprian and Stephen, the Council of Arles, the Donatists? What did Luther, Calvin and the Reformation confessions say? Does rebaptism express doubt in God’s promise, and is it fair to call that heresy or blasphemy?
Before you read: is it fair to call someone “against baptism” who accepts the baptism of infants, children and adults, by any mode, in the name of the Trinity?
Your answer is kept on this page only. You will be asked again at the end.
What the Spider holds, stated up front
- The Spider is for baptism: every age, every mode, wherever water is applied in the triune name. Part I.
- The other side is sincere, and its best text, Acts 19, does not show a Christian baptism being repeated. Part II.
- “One baptism” is an article of the creed, not a denominational opinion. Part III.
- Heresy: the Church has judged rebaptism and rejected it, again and again, for about seventeen centuries. Part IV, with an interactive timeline.
- Blasphemy: to rebaptise is to say that God’s name, spoken over a person at Christ’s command, did nothing. Luther used the word first. Part V.
- The answer to a drifting life is repentance that returns to the baptism already given. Part VI.
- What the Spider is not saying, set out so that the polemic stays honest. Part VII.
- The accusation, answered. Part VIII.
The prompt behind this page
This page was produced by giving the following brief to a frontier language model with web search, which assembled and checked the sources. It is published so you can run it yourself, change it, or reverse it. Two experiments are worth trying. Reverse it: ask for the strongest case that a person baptised as an infant should be baptised as a believer, written by someone who holds that view, and see what it does with Ephesians 4:5 and the Council of Arles. Neutralise it: remove the instruction to state a verdict, and see whether the historical record changes or only the tone.
Write a short, polemical, source-first, interactive article, in
British English, for a general reader. Quote Scripture from the
Authorised Version. Verify every date, quotation and reference
against a reliable published source; where an item does not hold
up, drop it or soften it, and say so. Do not invent quotes.
WORKING TITLE. Against Baptism? The Spider Answers. Alternatives
to consider: "Baptize Once. Never Twice.", "The Spider Is for
Baptism", "Who Is Really Against Baptism?" Confirm the title
with me.
FORM. A short dossier, a fraction of the length of a full one,
and an opinion piece. It is written in the voice of the Spider:
the church member from Dossier 68 (Kill the Spider?) and 69
(Educate the Spiders, Maybe?), the one who asks the questions.
Unlike most dossiers, it does not set out both sides and leave
the verdict open. It states what the Spider believes, says it
bluntly, and gives the reasons in brief. Mark it clearly at the
top as "The Spider's opinion." Send readers who want the full
evidence to the dossiers that already carry it. Do not repeat
them. First person plural or third person ("the Spider
believes") is fine; choose one and keep it consistent. Tone:
direct, unapologetic, and unhedged on the main point. Use the
words heresy and blasphemy plainly, as the Spider's judgement,
and give the reasons. Be fair in the paragraph on the other side
and generous in the section on what the Spider is not saying,
then do not soften the verdict.
THESIS. The Spider is not against baptism. The Spider is for
baptism: for infants, children and adults, by immersion, pouring
or sprinkling, wherever water is applied in the name of the
Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
KEY POINTS, each in its own box.
- What the Spider rejects is rebaptism. To baptize again someone
already baptized in the triune name is to say that God's
promise, spoken over that person with his own name, did not
take.
- That is doubt in God's promise, which makes it heresy.
- And because it treats God's own name and God's own act as
empty, it is blasphemy.
- The Church has said so with one voice for seventeen centuries.
- The one who rebaptizes is the one who is against baptism.
SOURCE OF THE MATERIAL. A recent baptism service at a modern
church, in which adults who had been baptized as infants were
baptized again, framed it this way:
"At that age, sometimes people may think, well, I'm all set. I
was raised in a traditional Methodist family or etc. I don't
need to get any more immersion baptized. Isn't it? People come
to a conclusion and then parents are behind it. Oh no, you have
been already baptized, you know. But I think they were very open
to the Holy Spirit's plan."
The same service called baptism "not an option," and also taught
that "water does not cleanse anybody from any sin."
No preachers, churches or baptism candidates are named, and no
names should be supplied or guessed. Refer to the candidates only
in general terms, and never criticize them. They acted in good
faith on what they were taught. The criticism is of the teaching.
CORE CLAIM: WHO IS REALLY AGAINST BAPTISM? Turn the accusation
around, plainly. The Spider believes baptism is God's act, that
it does what God promises it does, and that God's promise does
not expire. The teaching the Spider opposes says baptism is
"only a symbol," that the water does nothing, and that a baptism
in the triune name, done in obedience to Matthew 28:19 by
Christians for most of Christian history, did not count. One of
these positions holds baptism so high that it refuses to repeat
it. The other holds it so low that it can be thrown away and
done again. Ask readers which one is "against baptism." Make
this prominent.
QUESTION TO TEST. Is it fair to call someone "against baptism"
who accepts the baptism of infants, children and adults, by any
mode, in the name of the Trinity? Does Scripture or the historic
Church allow a person validly baptized in the name of the Father,
Son and Holy Spirit to be baptized again? What do Ephesians 4:5
and the Nicene Creed's "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins"
mean for rebaptism? How did the early Church judge those who
rebaptized (Cyprian and Stephen, the Council of Arles, the
Donatists)? What did Luther, Calvin and the Reformation
confessions say? Does rebaptism express doubt in God's promise,
and is it fair to call that heresy or blasphemy?
SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS.
1. What the Spider is for. State it first and make it
unmissable. No quarrel with immersion (the historic churches
immerse, including infants) or with baptizing adult converts.
The one thing the Spider will not accept is doing it a second
time to someone already baptized.
2. Give the other side its due, in one paragraph. Believer's-
baptism Christians do not think they are rebaptizing anyone;
in their view the infant rite was not baptism at all. Concede
the sincerity. Answer briefly: Acts 19:1-5 concerns people
who had never received Christian baptism (verify Augustine or
another Father on Acts 19); the Church has baptized those
whose first rite was not Trinitarian (Nicaea 325, canon 19,
the Paulianists; verify), which is the line; the claim that
age or faith voids it puts the validity of baptism in the
person, not in God; and "it was never a baptism" means most
Christians who ever lived died unbaptized.
3. One baptism: Ephesians 4:5-6 and the Nicene Creed (381).
Link to 21 and 01; do not repeat them.
4. Why the Spider calls it heresy (hairesis, "choice"). A short
timeline, each item verified: c. 256 Cyprian and Stephen
("Let nothing be innovated beyond what has been handed down",
Cyprian, Epistle 74.1; verify numbering); 314 Arles, canon 8
(verify numbering); c. 400 Augustine against the Donatists
("Peter baptizes, it is Christ who baptizes. Judas baptizes,
it is Christ who baptizes", Tractates on John 6.7; verify);
1530 onward the Reformation confessions (Augsburg IX,
Westminster 28.7, Belgic 34, Second Helvetic 20; verify each).
The Catholic and Orthodox churches teach the same.
5. Why the Spider calls it blasphemy. Baptism is God's act in
God's name (Matthew 28:19; Augustine; Luther, Large Catechism
IV). God does not break his word (Numbers 23:19; Romans 3:3-4;
2 Timothy 2:13; Romans 11:29). Rebaptism treats God's name as
taken in vain (Exodus 20:7) and his promise as void. Luther,
Concerning Rebaptism (1528) and the Large Catechism; Calvin,
Institutes 4.15.3, 4.15.16-18 (verify). Box this argument.
6. Come home, don't start over. The prodigal (Luke 15); Peter
(John 21:15-17); Luther on daily return to baptism; Calvin
4.15.3. "Your baptism was real. God meant it. Believe it
now." Link to 54.
7. What the Spider is not saying: not that believer's-baptism
Christians are not Christians; no criticism of anyone
rebaptized in good faith (James 3:1); no approval of the
persecution of rebaptizers (Theodosian Code; Felix Manz,
Zurich, 1527; verify both). Link to 68.
8. The accusation, answered. Who honours baptism more? And who,
in the end, is against it?
PROMINENT BOXES, strongly bordered, so a reader who only skims
the boxes gets the whole argument: the Spider's opinion; the
Spider is for baptism; what the Spider rejects; one baptism;
heresy; blasphemy; come home, don't start over; who is against
baptism?
EARLIER ARTICLES. Link rather than repeat: 21 (main link), 68, 69,
57, 58, 27, 22, 01, 54, 10, 23, and the companion pieces on the
same sermon (73, 74, 75).
NAMING. No names of preachers, churches or candidates.
OUTPUT: a single self-contained interactive HTML page, professional
and readable, light theme by default with a dark switch, stating
the question at the top, publishing this prompt in full, with a
short interactive timeline of the Church's rulings on rebaptism
(c. 256 to the Reformation confessions), each entry expanding to
show the quotation. Also a plain-English quick version and a
Simple English version.
The page you are reading is the output of that brief after the sources were checked. The working title was kept, with “Baptise once. Never twice.” as its subtitle. Third person (“the Spider believes”) was chosen and kept throughout. Everything marked “verify” was checked. Eleven things corrected, qualified or extended the brief, and each is marked where it arises.
1. “Augustine … died unbaptised”: wrong example, removed. Augustine was not baptised as an infant. He was enrolled as a catechumen as a child and baptised by Ambrose at Easter 387, aged thirty-two. The point stands with other names: Luther, Calvin and John Wesley were all baptised as infants. Part II.
2. “With one voice for seventeen centuries”: softened. The rule that a true baptism in the triune name is never repeated has been the Church’s settled judgement for about seventeen centuries, but it was not unanimous at the start. Cyprian and the councils of North Africa rebaptised, and parts of the East long decided case by case which groups’ baptisms to accept. In 1755 a decree under Patriarch Cyril V of Constantinople required converts from the Western churches to be baptised, on the ground that baptisms outside Orthodoxy were not true baptisms. That decree was never formally withdrawn, though Orthodox practice since the early twentieth century has varied and many converts are received by chrismation. Even there the principle is the same: what is held to be a true baptism is never repeated. The page says “the settled judgement” and states the exceptions. Part IV.
3. Cyprian and Stephen: confirmed, with a numbering note. Stephen’s ruling is quoted in Cyprian’s letter to Pompey, numbered 74 in the Latin editions and 73 in the Ante-Nicene Fathers. The English there reads “let nothing be innovated (or done) which has not been handed down.” Part IV.
4. Arles, canon 8: confirmed. It is canon 8 in the manuscript numbering and canon 9 in some modern editions. Part IV quotes it.
5. Nicaea, canon 19: confirmed, with a qualification. The canon orders that the Paulianists “must by all means be rebaptized” but does not itself give the reason. The standard explanation is that, although they used the names of the Trinity, they did not confess the Trinity, so their rite was not baptism in the triune name. The page says so. Part II.
6. A Father on Acts 19: confirmed, and a Reformer added. Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists V.9.10–13.15, argues that those Paul baptised had received John’s baptism, which “was not the same” as Christ’s, so Christ’s baptism was not repeated. Calvin reads the passage differently: “I deny that they were rebaptised,” taking verse 5 to describe the laying on of hands (Institutes 4.15.18). The two disagree about the passage and agree on the conclusion that matters. Part II.
7. Augustine on Christ the baptiser: confirmed. Tractates on John 6.7, in the standard English: “Peter may baptize, but this is He that baptizes; Paul may baptize, yet this is He that baptizes; Judas may baptize, still this is He that baptizes.” Part IV.
8. The Augsburg Confession: precise wording. Article IX condemns “the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children.” It does not mention rebaptism in so many words. Westminster 28.7, Belgic 34 and Second Helvetic 20 do, and are quoted. The Council of Trent (1547) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) were added. Part IV.
9. Luther: the brief’s strongest word is Luther’s own. The Large Catechism, Part IV, ¶ 55, says that to rebaptise on the ground that faith was lacking “would mean to blaspheme and profane the Sacrament in the worst manner.” Part V quotes it, along with ¶¶ 10, 53, 56, 65 and 79, and Concerning Rebaptism (1528), Luther’s Works 40:252.
10. Calvin: wording from the Beveridge translation, and one addition. Institutes 4.15.3: “at whatever time we are baptised, we are washed and purified once for the whole of life.” 4.15.16: “baptism is not of man, but of God, by whomsoever it may have been administered.” Added from 4.15.17: when Israel returned to God, God “gives no injunction concerning another circumcision.” Parts V and VI.
11. The persecution of rebaptisers: one claim softened. The Theodosian Code (438) carries a whole title, “That holy baptism be not repeated” (16.6), and Roman law made rebaptism a crime. The page could not confirm against the text that the Code itself set death as the penalty, so it does not say so. Confirmed: in April 1529 the Diet of Speyer decreed that “every Anabaptist and rebaptized person of either sex be put to death,” and Felix Manz was drowned in the Limmat at Zurich on 5 January 1527. Part VII.
What follows
What the Spider is for
Infants, children, adults. Immersion, pouring, sprinkling. Wherever water is applied in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Let that be unmissable, because the accusation depends on missing it. The Spider has no quarrel with immersion. The historic churches immerse, and the Eastern churches immerse infants to this day (Dossier 74). The Spider has no quarrel with baptising adults. The early Church baptised adult converts constantly; the household baptisms of Acts took in the adults with everyone else (Dossier 58). The Spider would gladly stand at any font or any river where someone who has never been baptised is baptised in the triune name, and say amen.
One thing only: rebaptism. Doing it a second time to someone already baptised in the name of the Trinity.
A person who accepts every age and every mode is not against baptism. The disagreement is about one thing: whether a baptism God has already given can be done again.
The other side, given its due
Christians who practise believer’s baptism do not think they are rebaptising anyone. In their view the rite performed over an infant was not baptism at all, because baptism follows personal faith, so the adult baptism is the first real one. They are sincere. They are not trying to insult God; most of them are trying hard to obey him. Their strongest text is Acts 19:1–5, where disciples at Ephesus who had received John’s baptism were then “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” The Spider concedes the sincerity without reservation. Then the Spider answers, briefly.
The evidence on both sides is laid out at length in Dossier 21, including the scholarly debate between Joachim Jeremias and Kurt Aland on the early evidence for infant baptism, and in 57, 58 and 73.
The other side is sincere, and its best text does not repeat a Christian baptism. Its real claim is that the person, not the triune name, decides whether a baptism happened.
One baptism. The creed says so.
“One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all.”
“We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.”
Ephesians 4:5–6, Authorised Version; the Nicene Creed as completed at Constantinople in 381.This is not a denominational opinion. It is an article of the creed, confessed by Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican and Reformed Christians every Sunday in some form. It does not say “one baptism, unless you were young.” It sets baptism in the same row as one Lord and one God. Rebaptism contradicts a line of the creed. What the article meant to the people who wrote it, and why “born again” was attached to it for fifteen centuries, is in Dossier 21 and Dossier 01; the Spider does not repeat it here.
Why the Spider calls it heresy
The Greek word hairesis means “choice”: choosing one’s own teaching over the faith the Church received. The Church has faced rebaptism before. Each time it was asked, it answered no. Tap any entry to see what was actually said.
The whole Church, East and West, Catholic and Protestant, settled against rebaptism long ago and has held to it for about seventeen centuries.
The honest exceptions
The judgement was not unanimous at the start. Cyprian and the African councils rebaptised, and lost the argument; the Church still honours Cyprian as a saint and martyr. Parts of the East long decided group by group, and a Greek decree of 1755 required Western converts to be baptised. But notice what even the exceptions assumed: that a true baptism is never repeated. Every one of them argued about what counted as a true baptism. None of them taught that a true baptism could be done again.
Then the point, plainly. Rebaptism of those already baptised in the triune name is a teaching the Church, East and West, Catholic and Protestant, has rejected for about seventeen centuries. The Spider is not inventing a charge. The Spider is repeating the Church’s.
Why the Spider calls it blasphemy
This is the Spider’s sharpest claim, and it is the Spider’s opinion. Here is the argument, in three steps.
1. Baptism is God’s act, done in God’s name
“Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19). Augustine: whoever pours the water, “this is He that baptizes.” Luther: “to be baptized in the name of God is to be baptized not by men, but by God Himself” (Large Catechism IV.10). Calvin: “baptism is not of man, but of God, by whomsoever it may have been administered” (Institutes 4.15.16).
2. God does not break his word
3. So what does rebaptism say?
It says that the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit was spoken over a person, with water, at Christ’s command, and nothing happened. It treats God’s name as having been taken in vain (“Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain,” Exodus 20:7) and God’s promise as void. That is not a slight against a church tradition. It is a charge laid against God himself.
Rebaptism says God’s name, spoken over you with water at Christ’s command, did nothing.
The Spider’s judgement on a teaching, not on any person who was taught it.Luther said it first. In the Large Catechism (1529) he took exactly the case of a person baptised without faith. Faith does not make baptism; it receives it (IV.53). Even a man baptised dishonestly has a true baptism (IV.54). And to rebaptise him on the ground that faith was lacking “would mean to blaspheme and profane the Sacrament in the worst manner” (IV.55). A year earlier, in Concerning Rebaptism, he had put the principle in one line: “we are not to base baptism on faith” (Luther’s Works 40:252). Calvin, against the Anabaptists of his day: “we were initiated not into the name of any man, but into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (Institutes 4.15.16).
If baptism is God’s act in God’s name, then to say it did not take is to say God did not keep his word. That is the charge, and it is a serious one. The Spider makes it because the alternative is to say that God’s name can be spoken over a person and mean nothing.
Come home, don’t start over
Suppose someone was baptised as an infant and drifted, or never took the faith seriously until later. What does God offer them? Not a second baptism. Repentance, and faith that lays hold of the baptism already given.
“Your baptism was real. God meant it. Believe it now.”
Luther gave the adult who comes to faith late the words to say: “The baptism indeed was right, but I, alas! did not receive it aright” (Large Catechism IV.56). See Dossier 54, Even God Has Prodigals.What the Spider is not saying
- The Spider does not say that believer’s-baptism Christians are not Christians, or that their faith is false. Many of them love Christ more visibly than many who were baptised as infants.
- The Spider does not criticise anyone who was baptised again in good faith because their pastor told them to be. They were obeying the teaching they were given. The responsibility lies with the teacher: “My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation” (James 3:1).
- The Spider does not approve of the way rebaptisers were treated. Roman law made rebaptism a crime; the Theodosian Code has a whole title, “That holy baptism be not repeated.” In 1529 the Diet of Speyer decreed death for “every Anabaptist and rebaptized person,” and Catholic and Protestant authorities alike carried it out. Felix Manz was drowned in the Limmat at Zurich on 5 January 1527. That was a grave sin. The answer to wrong teaching is an argument, never a punishment. Dossier 68 makes the same point about the Spider.
Who is really against baptism?
Turn the accusation around. Here are the two positions, side by side. Read the rows, then answer the question at the bottom.
Which position is “against baptism”?
One of these positions holds baptism so high that it refuses to repeat it. The other holds it so low that it can be thrown away and done again.
The one who says it can be thrown away and done again.
The Spider is called “against baptism” by those who teach that baptism does nothing and can be done again. The Spider believes that baptism is God’s own work, done once, good for life, and never needing repetition. Who honours baptism more? And who, in the end, is against it?
Now, after reading: is it fair to call someone “against baptism” who accepts the baptism of infants, children and adults, by any mode, in the name of the Trinity?
Check it yourself
This page is short because the evidence is published elsewhere. If you read only one thing more, read Dossier 21.
- 1. Ephesians 4:1–6; Matthew 28:18–20; Acts 19:1–7. Five minutes. Read Acts 19 for yourself and ask what those disciples had received before Paul met them.
- 2. Luther, Large Catechism, Part IV, “Of Baptism.” Twenty minutes, and the single best source on this question. Paragraphs 10, 52–56, 65 and 74–86. Free at bookofconcord.org.
- 3. Cyprian, Letter 74 (Ante-Nicene Fathers 73), to Pompey, §1, for Stephen’s ruling. Council of Arles (314), canon 8. Council of Nicaea (325), canon 19.
- 4. Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists (c. 400), especially Book V, chapters 9–13 on Acts 19; and Tractates on John 6.7.
- 5. Calvin, Institutes 4.15.3 and 4.15.16–18. Free at ccel.org.
- 6. The confessions. Augsburg IX (1530); Council of Trent, Session VII, canons on baptism 4, 11 and 13 (1547); Belgic 34 (1561); Second Helvetic 20 (1566); Westminster 28.7 (1646); Catechism of the Catholic Church §1272 (1992).
- 7. Earlier dossiers. The evidence behind this page, in full:
21One Lord, One Faith, How Many Baptisms?The main link. Rebaptism, the creed, the early Church and the Reformers, and the Jeremias–Aland debate. 68Kill the Spider?Who the Spider is, and why a pulpit should not pray for the death of those who disagree. 69Educate the Spiders, Maybe?Why questions from the pews deserve answers. 57Did the Babies Stay Home?Infant baptism and the household pattern. 58All in the Same Hour?The household baptisms in Acts. 27Following Jesus in Baptism?What baptism does, and why it is not a re-enactment of the Jordan. 22Not Even in the Fine PrintThe cost of “symbol only,” and how it goes unmentioned in statements of faith. 01When Were You Born Again?The creed’s “one baptism for the remission of sins,” and what “born again” meant for fifteen centuries. 54Even God Has ProdigalsReturn and restoration. 10The Branch Calls the Tree DeadThe historic churches dismissed as “dead.” 23Dead Rituals?Assurance resting on God’s act rather than an inner decision. 73Did Augustine Invent Infant Baptism?A companion on the same sermon series: a claim about dates, checked. 74Immersion Only? Where Is the Evidence?A companion: what “came up out of the water” does and does not say. 75Dedicated, Not Baptized?A companion: Luke 2:21–24, and the verse the sermon skipped.
- 8. One question. Do this one. If you are told you should be baptised again, ask, kindly: “In whose name was I baptised the first time?” Then ask what it would mean if that name did nothing.
No living individual, preacher, church or candidate is named or identifiable on this page. The service is quoted from a transcription without identifying detail. This page states an opinion about a teaching; it does not judge any person’s faith, sincerity, salvation or standing before God.
Want this in five minutes instead?
There is a plain-English version of this dossier with the same argument and the same boxes, in fewer words.
Read the quick version → Simple English →