SIR ROBERT ANDERSON
Secret Service
Theologian
CHRIST AND
CRITICISM.
BY SIR ROBERT ANDERSON, K. C. B., LL. D.
AUTHOR OF "THE BIBLE AND MODERN CRITICISM," ETC., ETC.,
LONDON,
ENGLAND.
In his "Founders of Old Testament Criticism" Professor
Cheyne of Oxford gives the foremost place to Eichhorn. He hails him, in fact,
as the founder of the cult. And according to this same authority, what led
Eichhorn to enter on his task was "his hope to contribute to the winning back
of the educated classes to religion." The rationalism of Germany at the close
of the eighteenth century would accept the Bible only on the terms of bringing
it down to the level of a human book, and the problem which had to be solved
was to get rid of the element of miracle which pervades it. Working on the
labours of his predecessors, Eichhorn achieved this to his own satisfaction by
appealing to the oriental habit of thought, which seizes upon ultimate causes
and ignores intermediate processes. This commended itself on two grounds. It
had an undoubted element of truth, and it was consistent with reverence for
Holy Scripture. For of the founder of the "Higher Criticism" it was said, what
cannot be said of any of his successors, that "faith in that which is holy,
even in the miracles of the Bible, was never shattered by Eichhorn in any
youthful mind."
In the view of his successors, however, Eichhorn's
hypothesis was open to the fatal objection that it was altogether inadequate.
So the next generation of critics adopted the more drastic theory that the
Mosaic books were "mosaic" in the sense that they were literary forgeries of a
late date, composed of materials supplied by ancient documents and the myths
and legends of the Hebrew race. And though this theory has been modified from
time to time during the last century, it remains substantially the "critical"
view of the Pentateuch. But it is open to two main objections, either of which
would be fatal. It is inconsistent with the evidence. And it directly
challenges the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ as a teacher; for one of the
few undisputed facts in this controversy is that our Lord accredited the books
of Moses as having divine authority.
THE TRUE AND THE
COUNTERFEIT.
It may be well to deal first with the least important of
these objections. And here we must distinguish between the true Higher
Criticism and its counterfeit. The rationalistic 'Higher Criticism," when
putting the Pentateuch upon its trial, began with the verdict and then cast
about to find the evidence; whereas, true criticism enters upon its inquiries
with an open mind and pursues them without prejudice. The difference may be
aptly illustrated by the position assumed by a typical French judge and by an
ideal English judge in a criminal trial. The one aims at convicting the
accused, the other at elucidating the truth. "The proper function of the Higher
Criticism is to determine the origin, date, and literary structure of an
ancient writing." This is Professor Driver's description of true criticism. But
the aim of the counterfeit is to disprove the genuineness of the ancient
writings. The justice of this statement is established by the fact that
Hebraists and theologians of the highest eminence, whose investigation of the
Pentateuch problem has convinced them of the genuineness of the books, are not
recognized at all.
In Britain, at least - and I am not competent to speak
of Germany or America - no theologian of the first rank has adopted their
"assured results." But the judgment of such men as Pusey, Lightfoot and Salmon,
not to speak of men who are still with us, they contemptuously ignore; for the
rationalistic Higher Critic is not one who investigates the evidence, but one
who accepts the verdict.
THE PHILOLOGICAL INQUIRY.
If, as its
apostles sometimes urge, the Higher Criticism is a purely philological inquiry,
two obvious conclusions follow. The first is that its verdict must be in favour
of the Mosaic books; for each of the books contains peculiar words suited to
the time and circumstances to which it is traditionally assigned. This is
admitted, and the critics attribute the presence of such words to the
Jesuitical skill of the priestly forgers. But this only lends weight to the
further conclusion that Higher Criticism is wholly incompetent to deal with the
main issue on which it claims to adjudicate. For the genuineness of the
Pentateuch must be decided on the same principles on which the genuineness of
ancient documents is dealt with in our courts of justice. And the language of
the documents is only one part of the needed evidence, and not the most
important part. And fitness for dealing with evidence depends upon qualities to
which Hebraists, as such, have no special claim. Indeed, their writings afford
signal proofs of their unfitness for inquiries which they insist on regarding
as their special preserve.
Take, for example, Professor Driver's grave
assertion that the presence of two Greek words in Daniel (they are the names of
musical instruments) demand a date for the book subsequent to the Greek
conquest. It has been established by Professor Sayce and others that the
intercourse between Babylon and Greece in, and before, the days of
Nebuchadnezzar would amply account for the presence in the Chaldean capital of
musical instruments with Greek names. And Colonel Conder, moreover,- a very
high authority -considers the words to be Akkadian, and not Greek at all! But
apart from all this, we can imagine the reception that would be given to such a
statement by any competent tribunal. The story bears repeating -it is a record
of facts -that at a church bazaar in Lincoln some years ago, the alarm was
raised that pickpockets were at work, and two ladies had lost their purses. The
empty purses were afterwards found in the pocket of the Bishop of the Diocese!
On the evidence of the two purses the Bishop should be convicted as a thief,
and on the evidence of the two words the book of Daniel should be convicted as
a forgery!
HISTORICAL BLUNDER.
Here is another typical item in
the Critics' indictment of Daniel. The book opens by recording Nebuchadnezzar's
siege of Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim, a statement the correctness
of which is confirmed by history, sacred and secular. Berosus, the Chaldean
historian, tells us that during this expedition Nebuchadnezzar received tidings
of his father's death, and that, committing to others the care of his army and
of his Jewish and other prisoners, "he himself hastened home across the
desert." But the German skeptics, having decided that Daniel was a forgery, had
to find evidence to support their verdict. And so they made the brilliant
discovery that Berosus was here referring to the expedition of the following
year, when Nebuchadnezzar won the battle of Carchemish against the army of the
king of Egypt, and that he had not at that time invaded Judea at all. But
Carchemish is on the Euphrates, and the idea of "hastening home" from there to
Babylon across the desert is worthy of a schoolboy's essay! That he crossed the
desert is proof that he set out from Judea; and his Jewish captives were, of
course, Daniel and his companion princes. His invasion of Judea took place
before his accession, in Jehoiakam's third year, whereas the battle of
Carchemish was fought after his accession, in the king of Judah's fourth year,
as the biblical books record. But this grotesque blunder of Bertholdt's "Book
of Daniel" in the beginning of the nineteenth century is gravely reproduced in
Professor Driver's "Book of Daniel" at the beginning of the twentieth
century.
CRITICAL PROFANITY.
But to return to Moses. According
to "the critical hypothesis," the books of the Pentateuch are literary
forgeries of the Exilic Era, the work of the Jerusalem priests of those evil
days. From the Book of Jeremiah we know that those men were profane apostates;
and if "the critical hypothesis" be true, they were infinitely worse than even
the prophet's inspired denunciations of them indicate. For no eighteenth
century atheist ever sank to a lower depth of profanity than is displayed by
their use of the Sacred Name. In the preface to his "Darkness and Dawn," Dean
Farrar claims that he "never touches the early preachers of Christianity with
the finger of fiction." When his story makes Apostles speak, he has "confined
their words to the words of a revelation." But the authors of the Pentateuch
"touched with the finger of fiction" not only the holy men of the ancient days,
but their Jehovah God. "Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying." This and kindred
formulas are repeated times without number in the Mosaic books. If this be
romance, a lower type of profanity is inconceivable, unless it be that of the
man who fails to be shocked and revolted by it.
But no; facts prove that
this judgment is unjust. For men of unfeigned piety and deep reverence for
divine things can be so blinded by the superstitions of "religion" that the
imprimatur of the church enables them to regard these discredited books as Holy
Scripture. As critics they brand the Pentateuch as a tissue of myth and legend
and fraud, but as religionists they assure us that this "implies no denial of
its inspiration or disparagement of its contents."
ERRORS REFUTED BY
FACTS.
In controversy it is of the greatest importance to allow
op-ponents to state their position in their own words; and here is Professor
Driver's statement of the case against the Books of Moses:
"We can only
argue on grounds of probability derived from our view of the progress of the
art of writing, or of literary composition, or of the rise and growth of the
prophetic tone and feeling in ancient Israel, or of the period at which the
traditions contained in the narratives might have taken shape, or of the
probability that they would have been written down before the impetus given to
culture by the monarchy had taken effect, and similar considerations, for
estimating most of which, though plausible arguments on one side or the other
may be advanced, a standard on which we can confidently rely scarcely admits of
being fixed." ("Introduction," 6th ed., page 123.)
This modest
reference to "literary composition" and "the art of writing" is characteristic.
It is intended to gloss over the abandonment of one of the chief points in the
original attack. Had "Driver's Introduction" appeared twenty years earlier, the
assumption that such a literature as the Pentateuch could belong to the age of
Moses would doubtless have been branded as an anachronism. For one of the main
grounds on which the books were assigned to the latter days of the monarchy was
that the Hebrews of. six centuries earlier were an illiterate people. And after
that error had been refuted by archaelogical discoveries, it was still
maintained that a code of laws so advanced, and so elaborate, as that of Moses
could not have originated in such an age. This figment, however, was in its
turn exploded, when the spade of the explorer brought to light the now famous
Code of Khammurabi, the Amraphel of Genesis, who was king of Babylon in the
time of Abraham. Instead, however, of donning the white sheet when confronted
by this new witness, the critics, with great effrontery, pointed to the
newly-found Code as the original of the laws of Sinai. Such a conclusion is
natural on the part of men who treat the Pentateuch as merely human. But the
critics cannot have it both ways. The Moses who copied Khammurabi must have
been the real Moses of the Exodus, and not the mythical Moses of the Exile, who
wrote long centuries after Khammurabi had been forgotten!
AN INCREDIBLE
THEORY.
The evidence of the Khammurabi Code refutes an important count
in the critics' indictment of the Pentateuch; but we can call another witness
whose testimony demolishes their whole case. The Pentateuch, as we all know,
and the Pentateuch alone, constitutes the Bible of the Samaritans. Who, then,
were the Samaritans? And how and when did they obtain the Pentateuch? Here
again the critics shall speak for themselves. Among the distinguished men who
have championed their crusade in Britain there has been none more esteemed,
none more scholarly, than the late Professor Robertson Smith; and here is an
extract from his "Samaritans" article in the "Encyclopedia Britannica":
"They (the Samaritans) regard themselves as Israelites, descendants of the ten
tribes, and claim to possess the orthodox religion of Moses * * * The priestly
law, which is throughout based on the practice of the priests in Jerusalem
before the Captivity, was reduced to form after the Exile, and was published by
Ezra as the law of the rebuilt temple of Zion. The Samaritans must, therefore,
have derived their Pentateuch from the Jews after Ezra's reforms." And in the
same paragraph he says that, according to the contention of the Samaritans,
"not only the temple of Zion, but the earlier temple of Shiloh and the
priesthood of Eli, were schismatical." And yet, as he goes on to say, "the
Samaritan religion was built on the Pentateuch alone."
Now mark what this
implies. We know something of racial bitterness. We know more, unfortunately,
of the fierce bitterness of religious strife. And both these elements combined
to alienate the Samaritans from the Jews. But more than this, in the
post-exilic period distrust and dislike were turned to intense
hatred-"abhorrence" is Robertson Smith's word- by the sternness and contempt
with which the Jews spurned their proffered help in the work of reconstruction
at Jerusalem, and refused to acknowledge them in any way. And yet we are asked
to believe that, at this very time and in these very circumstances, the
Samaritans, while hating the Jews much as Orangemen hate the Jesuits, and
denouncing the whole Jewish cult as schismatical, not only accepted these
Jewish books relating to that cult as the "service books" of their own ritual,
but adopted them as their "Bible," to the exclusion even of the writings of
their own Israelite prophets, and the venerated and sacred books which record
the history of their kings. In the whole range of controversy, religious or
secular, was there ever propounded a theory more utterly incredible and
preposterous!
ANOTHER PREPOSTEROUS POSITION.
No less
preposterous are the grounds on which this conclusion is commended to us. Here
is a statement of them, quoted from the standard textbook of the cult,
Hasting's "Bible Dictionary": .,
"There is at least one valid ground for
the conclusion that the Pentateuch was first accepted by the Samaritans after
the Exile. Why was their request to be allowed to take part in the building of
the second temple refused by the heads of the Jerusalem community? Very
probably because the Jews were aware that the Samaritans did not as yet possess
the Law-Book. It is hard to suppose that otherwise they would have met with
this refusal. Further, anyone who, like the present writer, regards the modern
criticism of the Pentateuch as essentially correct, has a second decisive
reason for adopting the above view." (Professor Konig's article, "Samaritan
Pentateuch," page 68.)
Here are two "decisive reasons" for holding that
"the Pentateuch was first accepted by the Samaritans after the Exile." First,
because "very probably" it was because they had not those forged books that the
Jews spurned their help; and so they went home and adopted the forged books as
their Bible And, secondly, because criticism has proved that the books were not
in existence till then. To characterize the writings of these scholars as they
deserve is not a grateful task but the time has come to throw off reserve, when
such drivel as this is gravely put forward to induce us to tear from our Bible
the Holy Scriptures on which our Divine Lord based His claims to
Messiahship.
THE IDEA OF SACRIFICE A REVELATION.
The refutation
of the Higher Criticism does not prove that the Pentateuch is inspired of God.
The writer who would set himself to establish such a thesis as that within the
limits of a Review Article might well be admired for his enthusiasm and daring,
but certainly not for his modesty or discretion. Neither does it decide
questions which lie within the legitimate province of the true Higher
Criticism, as the authorship of Genesis. It is incredible that for the
thousands of years that elapsed before the days of Moses, God left His people
on earth without a revelation. It is plain, moreover, that many of the
ordinances divinely entrusted to Moses were but a renewal of an earlier
revelation. The religion of Babylon is clear evidence of such a primeval
revelation. How else can the universality of sacrifice be accounted for? Could
such a practice have originated in a human brain?
If some demented creature
conceived the idea that killing a beast before his enemy's door would
propitiate him, his neighbours would no doubt have suppressed him. And if he
evolved the belief that his god would be appeased by such an offensive
practice, he must have supposed his god to be as mad as himself. The fact that
sacrifice prevailed among all races can be explained only by a primeval
revelation. And the Bible student will recognize that God thus sought to
impress on men that death was the penalty of sin, and to lead them to look
forward to a great blood shedding that would bring life and blessing to
mankind. But Babylon was to the ancient world what Rome has been to
Christendom. It corrupted every divine ordinance and truth, and perpetuated
them as thus corrupted. And in the Pentateuch we have the divine re-issue of
the true cult. The figment that the debased and corrupt version was the
original may satisfy some professors of Hebrew, but no one who has any
practical knowledge of human nature would entertain it.
INSUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE.
At this stage, however, what concerns us is not the divine
authority of the books, but the human error and folly of the critical attack
upon them. The only historical basis of that attack is the fact that in the
revival under Josiah, "the book of the law" was found in the temple by Hilkiah,
the high priest, to whom the young king entrusted the duty of cleansing and
renovating the long neglected shrine. A most natural discovery it was, seeing
that Moses had in express terms commanded that it should be kept there (2 Kings
22:8; Deut. 31:26). But according to the critics, the whole business was a
detestable trick of the priests. For they it was who forged the books and
invented the command, and then hid the product of their infamous work where
they knew it would be found.
And apart from this, the only foundation for
"the assured results of modern criticism," as they themselves acknowledge,
consists of "grounds of probability" and "plausible arguments"! In no civilized
country would an habitual criminal be convicted of petty larceny on such
evidence as this; and yet it is on these grounds that we are called upon to
give up the sacred books which our Divine Lord accredited as "the Word of God"
and made the basis of His doctrinal teaching.
CHRIST OR
CRITICISM?
And this brings us to the second, and incomparably the
graver, objection to "the assured results of modern criticism." That the Lord
Jesus Christ identified Himself with the Hebrew Scriptures, and in a very
special way with the Book of Moses, no one disputes. And this being so, we must
make choice between Christ and Criticism. For if "the critical hypothesis" of
the Pentateuch be sustained, the conclusion is seemingly inevitable, either
that He was not divine, or that the records of His teaching are
untrustworthy.
Which alternative shall we adopt? If the second, then every
claim to inspiration must be abandoned, and agnosticism must supplant faith in
the case of every fearless thinker. Inspiration is far too great a question for
incidental treatment here; but two remarks with respect to it may not be
inopportune. Behind the frauds of Spiritualism there lies the fact, attested by
men of high character, some of whom are eminent as scientists and scholars,
that definite communications are received in precise words from the world of
spirits. And this being so, to deny that the Spirit of God could thus
communicate truth to men, or, in other words, to reject verbal inspiration on a
priori grounds, betrays the stupidity of systematized unbelief. And, secondly,
it is amazing that any one who regards the coming of Christ as God's supreme
revelation of Himself can imagine that (to put it on no higher ground than
"Providence") the Divine Spirit could fail to ensure that mankind should have a
trustworthy and true record of His mission and His teaching.
A MORE
HOPELESS DILEMMA.
But if the Gospel narrative be authentic, we are
driven back upon the alternative that He of whom they speak could not be
divine. "Not so," the critics protest, "for did He not Himself confess His
ignorance? And is not this explained by the Apostle's statement that in His
humiliation He emptied Himself of His Deity?" And the inference drawn from this
(to
quote the standard text-book of the cult) is that the Lord of Glory
"held the current Jewish notions respecting the divine authority and revelation
of the Old Testament." But even if this conclusion - as portentous as it is
profane - could be established, instead of affording an escape from the dilemma
in which the Higher Criticism involves its votaries, it would only serve to
make that dilemma more hopeless and more terrible. For what chiefly concerns us
is not that, the Lord's doctrinal teaching was false, but that in unequivocal
terms, and with extreme solemnity, He declared again and again that His
teaching was not His own but His Father's, and that the very words in which He
conveyed it were God-given.
A few years ago the devout were distressed by
the proceedings of a certain Chicago "prophet," who claimed divine authority
for his lucubrations. Kindly disposed people, rejecting a severer estimate of
the man and his platform utterances, regarded him merely as a profane fool.
Shall the critics betray us into forming a similarly indulgent estimate of --
My pen refuses to complete the sentence!
And will it be believed that the
only scriptural basis offered us for this astounding position is a verse in one
of the Gospels and a word in one of the Epistles! Passing strange it is that
men who handle Holy Scripture with such freedom when it conflicts with their
"assured results" should attach such enormous importance to an isolated verse
or a single word, when it can be misused to support them. The verse is Mark 13
:32, where the Lord says, with reference to His coming again: "Of that day and
hour knoweth no one; no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son,
but the Father." But this follows immediately upon the words: "Heaven and earth
shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away."
THE WORDS OF
GOD.
The Lord's words were not "inspired"; they were the words of God
in a still higher sense. "The people were astonished at His teaching," we are
told, "for he taught them as one having exousia." The word occurs again in Acts
1:7, where He says that times and seasons "the Father hath put in His own
exousia." And this is explained by Phil. 2 :6, 7: "He counted it not a prize
(or a thing to be grasped) to be on an equality with God, but emptied Himself"-
the word on which the kenosis theory of the critics depends. And He not only
stripped Himself of His glory as God; He gave up His liberty as a man. For He
never spoke His own words, but only the words which the Father gave Him to
speak. And this was the limitation of His "authority"; so that, beyond what the
Father gave Him to speak, He knew nothing and was silent. But when He spoke,
"He taught them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes." From their
scribes they were used to receive definite teaching, but it was teaching based
on "the law and the prophets." But here was One who stood apart and taught them
from a wholly different plane. "For," He declared, "I spake not.from Myself;
but the Father which sent Me, He hath given Me a commandment what I should say
and what 1 should speak. * * * The things, therefore, which I speak, even as
the Father hath said unto Me, so I speak" (John 12:49, 50, R. V.).
And let
us not forget that it was not merely the substance of His teaching that was
divine, but the very language in which it was conveyed. So that in His prayer
on the night of the betrayal He could say, not only "I have given them Thy
word," but "I have given them the words which Thou gavest Me."* His words,
therefore, about Moses and the Hebrew Scriptures were not, as the critics, with
such daring and seeming profanity, maintain, the lucubrations of a
superstitious and ignorant Jew; they were the words of God, and conveyed truth
that was divine and eternal.
When in the dark days of the Exile, God needed
a prophet who would speak only as He gave him words, He struck Ezekiel dumb.
Two judgments already rested on that people - the seventy years' Servitude to
Babylon, and then the Captivity - and they were warned that continued
impenitence would bring on them the still more terrible judgment of the seventy
years' desolations. And till that last judgment fell, Ezekiel remained dumb
(Ezek. 3 :26; 24:27; 33:22). But the Lord Jesus Christ needed no such
discipline. He came to do the Father's will, and no words ever passed His lips
save the words given Him to speak.
In this connection, moreover, two facts
which are strangely overlooked claim prominent notice. The first is that in
Mark 13 the antithesis is not at all between man and God, but between the Son
of God and the Father. And the second is that He had been re-invested with all
that, according to Phil. 2, He laid aside in coming into the world. "All things
have been delivered unto Me of My Father," He declared; and this at a time when
the proofs that "He was despised and rejected of men" were pressing on Him. His
reassuming the glory awaited His return to heaven, but here on earth the all
things were already His (Matt. 11:27).
AFTER THE KENOSIS.
The
foregoing is surely an adequate reply to the kenosis figment of the critics;
but if any should still doubt or cavil, there is another answer which is
complete and crushing. Whatever may have been the limitations under which He
rested during His ministry on earth, He was released from them when He rose
from the dead. And it was in His post-resurrection teaching that He gave the
fullest and clearest testimony to the Hebrew Scriptures. Then it was that,
"beginning at Moses, and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the
Scriptures the things concerning Himself." And again, confirming all His
previous teaching about those Scriptures, "He said unto them, These are the
words which I spake unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be
fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in
the psalms, concerning Me."
And the record adds: "Then opened He their mind
that they might understand the Scriptures." And the rest of the New Testament
is the fruit of that ministry, enlarged and unfolded by the Holy Spirit given
to lead them into all truth. And in every part of the New Testament the Divine
authority of the Hebrew Scriptures, and especially of the Books of Moses, is
either taught or assumed.
THE VITAL ISSUE.
Certain it is, then,
that the vital issue in this controversy is not the value of the Pentateuch,
but the Deity of Christ. And yet the present article does not pretend to deal
with the truth of the Deity. Its humble aim is not even to establish the
authority of the Scriptures, but merely to discredit the critical attack upon
them by exposing its real character and its utter feebleness. The writer's
method, therefore, has been mainly destructive criticism, the critics' favorite
weapon being thus turned against themselves.
A DEMAND FOR CORRECT
STATEMENT.
One cannot but feel distress at having to accord such
treatment to certain distinguished men whose reverence for divine things is
beyond reproach. A like distress is felt at times by those who have experience
in dealing with sedition, or in suppressing riots. But when men who are
entitled to consideration and respect thrust themselves into "the line of
fire," they must take the consequences. These distinguished men will not fail
to receive to the full the deference to which they are entitled, if only they
will dissociate themselves from the dishonest claptrap of this crusade ("the
assured results of modern criticism"; "all scholars are with us"; and so on-
bluster and falsehood by which the weak and ignorant are browbeaten or
deceived) and acknowledge that their "assured results" are mere hypotheses,
repudiated by Hebraists and theologians as competent and eminent as
themselves.
THINGS TO FEAR.
The effects of this "Higher
Criticism" are extremely grave. For it has dethroned the Bible in the home, and
the good, old practice of "family worship" is rapidly dying out. And great
national interests also are involved. For who can doubt that the prosperity and
power of the Protestant nations of the world are due to the influence of the
Bible upon character and conduct? Races of men who for generations have been
taught to think for themselves in matters of the highest moment will naturally
excel in every sphere of effort or of enterprise. And more than this, no one
who is trained in the fear of God will fail in his duty to his neighbour, but
will prove himself a good citizen. But the dethronement of the Bible leads
practically to the dethronement of God; and in Germany and America, and now in
England, the effects of this are declaring themselves in ways, and to an
extent, well fitted to cause anxiety for the future.
CHRIST
SUPREME.
If a personal word may be pardoned in conclusion, the writer
would appeal to every book he has written in proof that he is no champion of a
rigid, traditional "orthodoxy."
With a single limitation, he would advocate
full and free criticism of Holy Scripture. And that one limitation is that the
words of the Lord Jesus Christ shall be deemed a bar to criticism and "an end
of controversy" on every subject expressly dealt with in His teaching. "The Son
of God is come"; and by Him came both grace and TRUTH. And from His hand it is
that we have received the Scriptures of the Old Testament.
Literature | Photos | Links | Home