In my last post, I tried to show that the basic claim of apostolic succession goes back to the first century. I’d like to reiterate my claim: that there is a succession of bishops ordained by laying on of hands going back to the apostles, and the assured Eucharist (hence the assured Church) is intimately tied to these bishops – nothing more or less than this. This idea was indeed present in the earliest Church, but the office of bishop didn’t look quite like it does today. For one thing, the distinction between offices was more fluid, “bishop” and “presbyter” referred to the same office, and there were multiple bishops in each city. Here I will look into how the offices of the Church and the idea of apostolic succession developed between the first and fourth centuries.
Second Century
The second century saw the rise of the “three-tier” structure of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, and the development of the distinct office of presbyter. But how and why did this take place? Let’s start with the writings of St Ignatius of Antioch, who is the first to attest this structure.
Ignatius of Antioch and the “three-tier” Church
St Ignatius was the bishop of Antioch in the early second century until his martyrdom at Rome, which took place between ca. AD 108 and 140. [13] A recurring theme in his letters to the churches of Asia Minor is the bishop’s authority and the unity of the Church around him. This is seen quite clearly in his letter to the church in Smyrna:
Avoid divisions as the beginning of all evils. See that you all follow the bishop, as Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles, and reverence the deacons, as a command of God. Let no one do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered an assured Eucharist which is under the leadership of the bishop or one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the multitude of the people be; just as wherever Christ Jesus is, there is the catholic Church. It is not permitted without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate an agapē; but whatever he shall approve of, that is also well-pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be assured and certain. (Smyrn 8)
In his letters to the churches at Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Philadelphia, and Smyrna, Ignatius refers to the bishop of the church and distinguishes him from the presbytery (Eph 1.3; 4.1; Magn 2; Tral 1–3; Phil 1.1; 4; 10.2; Smyrn 12.2). He exhorts the believers to submit to the bishops and presbyters, not to avoid gathering with them, lest they be deprived of the Eucharist (Eph 4–6; 20.2; Magn 3–7; 13; Tral 2–3; 7; Phil 3–4; Smyrn 6–9). The fact that this is a central concern indicates that there was a serious danger of division in the Asian churches, and the only way believers could be “assured” that their Eucharist and Church were genuine was to gather with the genuine bishop. This fits with what we know from Revelation 2–3 that in the late first century, the churches in Asia Minor were beset by serious internal difficulties.
That explains Ignatius’ strong emphasis on the singularity of the bishop and the necessity of submitting to him. But where did the presbytery come from as a separate office from the episcopate? The presbyters in Asia Minor seem to have had an advisory and teaching role. They were “fitted to the bishop like strings are to the harp” (Eph 4.1); to be regarded as “the sanhedrin of God, the assembly of the apostles” (Tral 3.1). My hypothesis is that the itinerant ministry of prophets and teachers came to be subsumed within the local congregation in the late first and early second centuries, becoming a third office between bishop and deacon, and the term “presbyter” shifted from a title of the bishop to the title of this office. Another possibility is that, when the singular bishop became the locus of unity in congregations subject to serious internal stresses, the other bishops maintained a subordinate position as mere “presbyters.” [14]
Although the letters of St Ignatius are sometimes appealed to in support of apostolic succession, he actually never makes that claim. He strongly attests to the necessity of the bishop for the assured Eucharist and Church, but never discusses ordination or says that the office of bishop is derived from the apostles, which indicates that there wasn’t any controversy yet about who the genuine bishop was. In fact, Ignatius says that the presbyters are in the place of the apostles, while the bishop is in the place of God or Jesus Christ and the deacons in the place of Jesus Christ or “the command of God” (Magn 6.1; Tral 2–3; Smyrn 8.1). [15] This doesn’t disprove apostolic succession, since every office in the Church is directly or indirectly derived from the apostles, but neither does it support apostolic succession.
Bishops and presbyters in the second century
The distinction between bishop and presbyters appears in Syria and Asia Minor already at the beginning of the second century, but this “three-tier” structure took time to spread. St Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna in the mid-second century, wrote to the church in Philippi, “submit yourselves to the presbyters and deacons as to God and Christ,” and gave exhortations to deacons and presbyters (5.2-6.1). There is no mention of a singular bishop nor a distinction between the offices of bishop and presbyter. This suggests that the Philippian church was still governed by a plurality of presbyter-bishops and deacons, as in the first century (Phil 1:1), hence the “three-tier” structure wasn’t universal at that time.
The Shepherd of Hermas, written in ca. AD 140, provides a window into the structure of the Roman church in this period. Hermas is told to write down his visions and “read the words in this city, along with the presbyters who preside over the Church” (Vis. 2.4.3). This suggests that at this time in Rome, the title “presbyter” was still used for the highest office. However, he also refers to “apostles, bishops, teachers, and deacons, who have lived in godly purity, and have acted as bishops and teachers and deacons chastely and reverently to the elect of God” (Vis. 3.5.1; cf. Simil. 9.25-27). There appears to have been a three-tier structure, then, with presbyter-bishops, teachers, and deacons! St Justin Martyr, on the other hand, only refers to a single “president” and multiple deacons, without an office between them, at one of the congregations in Rome around the same time (1 Apol 67). [16]
Tertullian, who wrote from North Africa at the turn of the third century, refers to bishops, presbyters, and deacons as “persons in authority” (Fug 11.1; cf. Praescr 41.8; Monog 11.4). Despite his shaky relationship with the institutional Church, he acknowledges the apostolic origin of the episcopate, and regards it as important that bishops can trace their succession back to the apostles (Praescr 32; 36; Adv Marc 4.5). He denies, however, that bishops have the full authority of the apostles, since he doesn’t believe they can forgive grievous sins (Pudic 21). For Tertullian, the bishop has the primary right to baptize, but he can delegate this ability to presbyters and deacons, and even laity can baptize and celebrate the Eucharist in the absence of the “ecclesiastical order” (Bapt 17; Cast 7.3; cf. Idol 7.3). [17] The bishop has the ability to ordain, although Tertullian challenges one bishop’s decision to admit a woman to the order of “widow” (Virg 9.2).
St Irenaeus was the bishop of Lyons in modern-day France around the same time, makes a distinction between the presbyters and the episcopate (Adv Haer 4.26.2). In fact, he assumes that this distinction goes back to the first century, and interprets Acts 20:17, 28 to mean that Paul was addressing both bishops and presbyters (3.14.2). He also assumes one bishop in each city, as shown by the lists he provides (see below). Even so, he uses “presbyter” and “bishop” interchangeably, while the context makes clear to which office he is referring (4.26.5). Irenaeus claims that both the bishops and presbyters have succession from the apostles (3.2-3; 4.26.2).
The bishops of the “apostolic sees”
At the end of the second century, the proliferation of heresies meant that it was important to discern genuine apostolic doctrine. For the Church Fathers of this period, the answer was that there still exist churches that were founded by the apostles, whose leaders succeeded from them: if apostolic doctrine wasn’t found here, then it wasn’t found anywhere! (Tertullian, Praescr 32; 36; Adv Marc 4.5; Irenaeus, Adv Haer 3.2-3; Hegesippus in Eusebius, Church History 4.22) Hegesippus shows that this understanding was already present – and there was a single bishop in Corinth and Rome – as early as ca. AD 160. For this reason, lists of bishops in those cities showing their succession from the apostles began to be drawn up at that time.
The first attested bishop list for Rome was made by St Hegesippus when St Anicetus was bishop there, and his reason for doing so is clear: “In every succession and in every city, the teaching of the Law and the Prophets and the Lord is held” (Eusebius, Church History 4.22.3). Irenaeus also provides a list of bishops in “the very great, very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul” up to St Eleutherius, and implies that such lists were also known for the Asian churches (Adv Haer 3.3.2-4). He stresses that we should “hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession and assemble themselves in any place at all” (4.26.2). Tertullian challenges the heretics to provide their own bishop lists, referring to an existing list at Smyrna which shows that Polycarp was ordained by John, and at Rome which shows that Clement was ordained by Peter (Praescr 32).
Where did these bishop lists come from, since Rome wasn’t ruled by a single bishop until the mid-second century? I find it hard to believe that they were completely made up. It seems probable that a record was kept of which presbyters were ordained by which others, and when the episcopate narrowed to a single bishop, it was simply assumed that the current bishop’s lineage was a single succession. This would also make sense of the discrepancy between Tertullian, who says that Clement was ordained by Peter, and Irenaeus, who says that Clement was ordained by Linus who was ordained by Peter and Paul. Perhaps St Clement was ordained by both Sts Peter and Linus, who was in turn ordained by Sts Peter and Paul. On the other hand, in Asia and Syria where the monoepiscopate was of late first century origin, the bishop lists probably do record a single succession. [18]
Third Century
In the third century, we find many more details about the distinction between and roles of the three major offices of the Church. Under the threat of persecution, and disagreements over how to respond to those who succumbed, we see schism arise as a major problem in the West. St Cyprian of Carthage’s response to this provides an important window into the ecclesiology of this period.
Ordination in the third-century Church
The Apostolic Tradition is a third-century church order traditionally attributed to St Hippolytus of Rome (ca. AD 230), although this attribution is now doubtful. This text provides ordination prayers for bishops, presbyters, and deacons (2–3; 7–8). Notably, only bishops have the ability to ordain. For the ordination of a presbyter, together with the bishop, the other presbyters lay on their hands “because of a common spirit and common duty... the presbyter has only the authority to receive [ordination], but he has no authority to give it... Upon the ordination of the presbyter, he seals; the bishop ordains” (8.6-8). For the ordination of a bishop, multiple bishops lay their hands on him while the presbyters silently stand to the side (3.2-4). For the ordination of a deacon, only one bishop lays hands on him (8.1-5).
According to the ordination prayer, the role of the bishop is “offering the gifts of your holy church [i.e., the Eucharist]; in the spirit of high priesthood having the ability to forgive sins according to your command” (3.4-5). If possible, everyone should take the Eucharist directly from the hand of the bishop (22.1). The presbyter’s prayer asks God to “impart the spirit of grace and wisdom of the presbyters, that he may help and guide your people with a pure heart” (7.2). The deacon “is not ordained to the priesthood, but to the service of the bishop... acts as a manager” (8.2-4). The presbyters and deacons are supposed to assemble each day, as far as possible, to teach the people (39).
The Didascalia, a mid-third century church order from Syria, likewise states that the bishop is the one who ordains “presbyters as councillors and assessors, and deacons and sub-deacons” (2.34), while he himself is ordained by “the laying of hands” (2.2). The bishop is the antitype of the high priest, and the presbyters and deacons are priests and Levites, which stand in the place of God, the apostles, and Christ respectively (2.26). Hence nothing in the Church should be done apart from the bishop (2.27), and he is the one who baptizes, confirms, teaches, exhorts, and celebrates the Eucharist (2.33). Origen was “ordained as presbyter in Caesarea by the bishops of that country” (Eusebius, Church History 6.23). St Cyprian says that “the priest [i.e., bishop] should be chosen in the presence of the people” with the consent of all, and all the neighboring bishops should assemble there, that “the episcopate [may be] conferred on him and hands [may be] laid on him” (Letter 67.4-5).
Presbyterian ordination at Alexandria?
In the third century, then, ordination was normally performed by the laying on of hands by bishops. However, a possible counter-example is the church at Alexandria in which, according to several later sources, the bishop was ordained by the council of presbyters. St Jerome says that “at Alexandria... until the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius [up to AD 264] the presbyters always named as bishop one of their number chosen by themselves and set in a more exalted position” (Letter 146.1). Ambrosiaster states, “in Alexandria and throughout all Egypt, if a bishop is absent, a presbyter appoints” (Quaestiones 101.5). Severus of Antioch, in the sixth century, asserts that the bishop of Alexandria “used to be appointed by presbyters” as an example of an ancient practice that shouldn’t be upheld. Finally, the tenth-century bishop Eutychius of Alexandria says that twelve presbyters chose one of their own number, and the other eleven laid hands on him and made him bishop, until the early fourth century!
Even so, St Jerome and Ambrosiaster say that the presbyters “chose” (electum), “placed” (conlocatum), “named” (nominabant), and “appointed” (consignat) the bishop, but not that they actually “ordained” him. Jerome even says, directly after providing this anecdote, “For what function belongs to a bishop, except ordination, that does not belong to a presbyter?” The only one who actually describes a presbyterian ordination is Eutychius, who is far removed from this period (and disagrees with Jerome about how long the practice lasted). As such, I think it stretches the evidence too far to claim that presbyters in this period actually ordained the bishop of Alexandria. Instead, the presbyters chose one of their own to become bishop, and another bishop(s?) ordained – even if in some cases, as a later anecdote suggests, the bishop who ‘laid hands’ was the previous, deceased bishop. [19]
St Cyprian and the problem of schism
With the onset of the Decian persecution in AD 250, many Christians sacrificed to the Roman gods (or obtained a certificate saying that they had) instead of being put to death. These Christians, who were referred to as lapsi, became the flash point of a major schism: the presbyter Novatian claimed that the lapsed could never rejoin the Church, whereas the ongoing practice was to allow them back after a period of penance, and he broke with the church in Rome and formed his own parallel hierarchy. The Novatian schism continued into the eighth century in the West. This schism was firmly opposed by St Cyprian of Carthage, along with the rest of the institutional Church, on ecclesiological grounds. [20]
According to St Cyprian, the power given by Christ to St Peter, and later the rest of the apostles, to forgive sins has passed to their successor the bishop (Unit eccl 4–5; Letter 26.1; 72.7; 74.16-17; cf. 64.3). Therefore, the confessors have no authority to forgive the lapsi apart from the bishop (26.1-2). The bishop is also the source of unity in the Church (Unit eccl 5; Letters passim, esp 68.8), and “there should be one bishop in the catholic Church,” by which he means the local Church (45.2). The reason that Cyprian opposes Novatian is because Cornelius was legitimately ordained as the successor of with the consent of the people of Rome, and by setting himself up as another bishop of Rome, Novatian “has departed from the Church” (41–42; 51.8; 75.3-5). Novatian is to be regarded as Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, who set themselves up as priests in opposition to Aaron and his sons, and were punished by God (Unit eccl 10-18; Letters 67.3-4; 72.8; 75.8-9; cf. Num 16). He has an “adulterous throne” and a “profane altar” on which he offers “sacrilegious sacrifices opposed to the true priest [i.e., Cornelius]” (66.2; cf. 71.2; 75.1).
St Cyprian became embroiled in a controversy with St Stephen, bishop of Rome, over whether those coming to the Church from the Novatian schism had to be re-baptized. Cyprian argued that both baptism and the Eucharist show forth the unity of the Church sacramentally, and hence schismatics who oppose the unity of the Church can’t have a valid baptism almost by definition (Unit eccl 11; Letters 69.1-2; 70.1-2; 72.2ff; 73.11; 75.2ff; cf. 62.13). Stephen argued that baptism is valid any time that it is performed in Jesus’ name, but the Holy Spirit can’t be given by schismatics, so anyone baptized by schismatics should not be rebaptized but only confirmed (De Rebaptismate). Cyprian’s view was agreed upon by the other bishops of Africa and Asia Minor (Letters 69; 71; 74; Eusebius, Church History 7.2-5). Despite this controversy, there doesn’t seem to have been disagreement about the underlying ecclesiology.
Fourth Century
With the peace of the Church in the fourth century, the episcopate developed further and crystallized into the diocesan structure that still, more or less, exists today. Now that Christianity was a licit and imperially-endorsed religion, it also become possible for the first time to have an ecumenical council, where as many bishops as possible came together to decide on an issue.
The rise of the diocese and parish
In the earliest days of the Church, the local congregation was headed by the bishop (see above, esp Ignatius of Antioch). This would have been more difficult when one bishop per city became standard in the second century, but there’s no indication that this situation ceased to become normative until the mid-third century. With the Decian persecution, many bishops were sent into exile, and they delegated their sacramental functions to their presbyters. This is well-documented in St Cyprian’s letters, where he tells his presbyters and deacons to “discharge... both your own office and mine,” and refers to the presbyters “who offer [i.e., the Eucharist] with the confessors” (Letter 4). However, he rebukes presbyters who claim the “entire authority” (of the bishop) and commune lapsi without his permission (8–9; 27). St Dionysius of Alexandria, in the same period, gave instruction to his presbyters that they could commune lapsi on their deathbeds (Letter to Fabian 11).
At this point, it became more common for presbyters to celebrate the Eucharist and even to head their own local congregations with their own bishops, especially in rural areas (e.g., Cyprian, Letters 27.1; 74.10; Eusebius, Church History 7.24.6). However, we don’t see this become normative (at least in the cities) until the early fourth century. The Liber Pontificalis records that Marcellus I, bishop of Rome from 308–309, “appointed 25 parish churches in the city of Rome to provide baptism and penance” (31). The early fourth-century councils assume without discussion that a normal function of the presbyter is to offer the Eucharist (e.g., Ancyra 1; Neocaesarea 9, 13; Nicaea 18). The Council of Arles in 314 even records that some deacons were performing services, but resolves that this “should happen as little as possible.”
With these changes, the ordination prayers for presbyters also changed, now referring to them along with the bishop as “priests,” and praying “that he may perform the sacred rites on behalf of your people” (Apostolic Constitutions 8.1, 16). Now that the presbyters normally performed the same sacraments as the bishop, the view arose that the presbytery and episcopate are essentially the same office – both have the “priesthood” – the only difference being that bishops can ordain (Jerome, Letter 146; Ambrosiaster, Quaestiones 101; John Chrysostom, Hom 1 Tim 11). [21] Thus, the bishop became primarily the overseer of an area, the diocese, while the presbyter oversaw the local congregation, the parish; a situation which still holds in the Church today.
The origin of the ecumenical council
In the fourth century, bishops from across the Roman Empire met together for the first time in various councils to discuss theological and administrative questions. The two councils which came to be known as “ecumenical,” Nicaea I and Constantinople I, produced a creed which is still used by nearly all Christians today. But where did the idea of the ecumenical council come from? As early as St Ignatius of Antioch, the unity of the worldwide Church was tied to the fact that “the bishops settled in the farthest parts of the world are in the mind of Jesus Christ” (Eph 3.2). This was tested with various stresses in the mid-to-late second century, but even in the Quartodecimian controversy over the date of Pascha, St Anicetus of Rome invited St Polycarp of Smyrna to discuss the question, and allowed him to celebrate the Eucharist there as a show of unity despite not reaching an agreement (Eusebius, Church History 5.24.14-17).
However, our first detailed records of councils don’t appear until the mid-third century with the lapsi controversy after the Decian persecution. In the view of St Cyprian, the bishop is the unity of the local Church, and the unity of the worldwide Church is the shared communion and agreement between all the bishops (Unit eccl 5, 12; Letters 56.1; 68.8; 75.5-6; cf. 7.3; 19; 31; 43). [22] This agreement is realized practically in regional councils of bishops (31; 51.6-7; 52.3). Cyprian’s letters document various councils in Africa, Rome, and Asia Minor regarding the lapsi and the rebaptism of schismatics (51.6; 53; 58; 71; 74). After his time, another documented council was held in Antioch in 268 which decided against the monarchian Christology of the bishop Paul of Samosata.
It isn’t until the fourth century that we see the flourishing of the council. Right after the end of the Diocletianic persecution, in 314, there were councils in Arles, Ancyra, and Neocaesarea which ruled on various canonical and administrative issues. Due to the Arian controversy that ignited shortly afterward, the emperor Constantine invited all bishops in the Empire to Nicaea, where about 250 of them decided on a statement of faith (the Nicene Creed) and excommunicated Arius. This council also officially established the metropolitan bishop, who has authority over the other bishops in the region (canons 5-6), which was expanded upon by later councils (esp Antioch in 341). Nicaea wasn’t received by the entire worldwide Church until the late fourth century, but the idea of the ecumenical council certainly was present, and indeed goes back to the earliest days of the Church as we have seen.
Conclusion
In this post, we looked at the development of the Church’s structure from the second to the fourth centuries. Over this period the episcopate changed in some striking ways, such as the change from a more collective local church governance to the monoepiscopacy, and the rise of the diocesan and metropolitan systems. The Church’s self-understanding as the apostolic Church even developed over time, receiving very little attention from St Ignatius of Antioch and growing in emphasis with the rise of heresies and schisms. However, the basics of apostolic succession – that is, the existence of an office of bishop derived from the apostles, to which individuals are ordained via laying on hands of other bishops, which is closely tied to the Eucharist and the Church itself – remained in place from the very beginning. Thus, without judging on the validity of any other denomination, the Christian groups which today claim apostolic succession are indeed in closer continuity with the Church of the apostles.
______________________________
[13] St Ignatius’ martyrdom is traditionally dated to the reign of Trajan (98–117), based on the fourth-century Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea, but some scholars now locate his martyrdom decades later in the 140s.
[14] A combination of these views is also possible, for example, if the presbytery derived from itinerant teachers in some areas and from the episcopate in other areas. Another view is that the episkopē, which in the first century carried the functions of teaching and exhorting alongside performing the sacraments, came to be divided in the second century between episkopos who retained sacramental primacy and presbyteroi who retained teaching authority: John D. Zizioulas, “Episkopé and Episkopos in the Early Church. A Brief Survey of the Evidence,” Theological Studies 41 (1980): 30-42. Any of these views is still compatible with apostolic succession, based on the simple fact that an office with the power to ordain (i.e., the episcopate) could legitimately give rise to an office without power to ordain (i.e., the presbytery), while the opposite wouldn’t be (legitimately) possible.
[15] This structure of bishop = the Father, presbyters = apostles, deacons = Jesus Christ can be found in various other texts. For example, Polycarp later exhorts the Church in Philippi to regard their presbyter-bishops as the Father and their deacons as Jesus Christ (Phil 5.3). The third-century Didascalia (2.26) shares the same threefold identification as St Ignatius.
[16] There were multiple congregations in Rome at this point, according to the Martyrdom of Justin 2. Therefore, it seems likely that each congregation was led by a presbyter-bishop and several deacons, while some also had a separate office of teachers.
[17] Tertullian’s views on this topic likely changed throughout his life, as his relationship with the institutional Church grew more strained: David Rankin, Tertullian and the Church (Cambridge, 1995). Notably, his view that the bishops were the successors of the apostles did not change, even though (due to his rigorist tendencies) he denied their claim to have the ability to forgive sins that the apostles had.
[18] In fact, in Syria and Asia Minor, the monoepiscopate may have been of apostolic origin, since the bishop lists record that St Polycarp was appointed by the apostle John (e.g., Tertullian, Praescr 32), and based on the letters of St Ignatius we know that he was the sole bishop of Smyrna.
[19] For various perspectives on ordination in third-century Alexandria – and the very interesting anecdote about ordination by a deceased bishop laying on hands – see Charles Gore, “On the Ordination of the Early Bishops of Alexandria,” Journal of Theological Studies 3 (1902): 278-282; Eric Waldram Kemp, “Bishops and Presbyters at Alexandria,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 6 (1955): 125-142; Alistair Stewart-Sykes, “Origen, Demetrius, and the Alexandrian Presbyters,” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 48 (2004): 415-429.
[20] St Cyprian’s ecclesiology is well summed up in this statement: “Peter speaks there, on whom the Church was to be built, teaching and showing in the name of the Church, that although a rebellious and arrogant multitude of those who will not hear and obey may depart, yet the Church does not depart from Christ; and they are the Church who are a people united to the priest, and the flock which adheres to its pastor. Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” (Letter 68.8)
[21] On the emergence of the diocese and parish, see John D. Zizioulas, Eucharist, Bishop, Church: The Unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist and the Bishop During the First Three Centuries (Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), 195-246.
[22] Whereas the agreement was realized via councils, the shared communion was realized as members of different local Churches could receive the Eucharist at other congregations with a letter from their bishop, and bishops (in the second and third centuries) regularly 'conceded' the celebration of the Eucharist to other bishops with whom they were in communion: John D. Zizioulas, Eucharist, Bishop, Church, 150-159.
