THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
bishop of St. Asaph. In 1450 he was translated to Chichester, and became a member of the privy council.
He was a learned man and a faithful son of the Church, but, unfortunately for his personal comfort, he took too independent a course. He first comes prominently forward in 1447, when he boldly defended the bishops against the charges that they did not preach and that they were frequently absent from their sees. His sermon gave offense to the friars and to the progressive element of the clergy. "When in 1455 he issued his best-known book, A Repressor of Overmuch Blaming of the Clergy (ed. C. Babington, with biographical notice, in Roll's Series, 2 vols., 1860) which was intended to shut the mouths of the Lollards, he awoke a storm of criticism because in his candor he acknowledged that the Church could not be defended by appeal to Scripture, but only on philosophical grounds which he proceeded to state, and maintained that church practises which had no Scripture warrant were yet proper. In 1456 he brought out another book, The Book of Faith (ed. from MS. in Trinity Collsge, Cambridge, with Introduction, by J. L. Morison, Glasgow, 1909), in which he again presents his rational, not to say rationalistic, grounds for the church doctrines. But the latter book was still less acceptable to the hierarchy. He was condemned for heresy by the archbishop of Canterbury (1458), forced to make a public recantation and retractation, to resign his see, and then was confined in a monastery till he died. But the modern world honors him as among its forerunners. Bibliography: DNB, xliv. 198-202 (should be consulted for the sources, a considerable list of scattering notices being given); J. Lewis, Life of . . R. Pecock, London, 1744, new ed., Oxford, 1820; W. Brute, Writings and Examinations of . Pecock . and Others, ib. 1831; 'SV. W. Capes, English Church in the 14th and 15th Centuries, ib. 1900; J. Gairdner, Lollardy and the Reformation in England, i. 202—238, 255 sqq., London, 1908 (important) .
PECTORAL CROSS. See Vestments and Insignia, Ecclesiastical.
PECULIAR: The technical ecclesiastical title given to certain Anglican parishes which were exempt from the jurisdiction of the ordinary of the diocese, having an ordinary of their own. Their origin was in the papal Exemption (q.v.) exercised when England was Roman Catholic; at the Reformation, through oversight, these parishes remained under the sovereign or other superior. During the reign of William IV their exemption or exclusion from ordinary jurisdiction was abolished, with the sole exception of Westminster Abbey and the chapels of the Inns of Court.
PEKAH: Eighteenth king of Israel, son of Remaliah and successor of Pekahiah. His dates according to the old chronology are 758-743; according to Kamphausen 736-730; according to Whitehouse (DB, iii. 736) 736-733. Taking advantage of his position as shalish (E. V- " captain ") of Pekahiah, he conspired against him, assassinated him, and seized the throne. Tiglath-Pileser of Assyria attacked him, took certain cities, " all the land of Naphtali, and carried them captive to As-
syria." Hoshea the son of Elah then rose against Pekah, slew him, and reigned in his stead (II Kings xv. 25, 29-31). Other notices (II Kings xv. 37xvi. 5 sqq.) show that Pekah, in alliance with Rezin of Damascus, attacked Jotham and Ahaz of Judah. There was evidently an attempt to unite the Syrian states against Assyria, from which the kings of Judah held aloof and thus invited the hostility of the allies. Their invasion was repelled but the ultimate outcome was the dependence of Judah on Assyria, which proved fatal to the former (see Ahaz) and probably hastened Pekah's downfall. The immediate effect of the invasion upon the people and king of Judah and the policy advocated by the prophetic party are evident from Isa. vii.
The inscriptions (annals of Tiglath-Pileser, additions to the eponym canon, and the Babylonian chronicle) accord with the Biblical data. Tiglath- Pileser IV. came to the throne in 745 b.c. In pursuance of his policy to restore the Assyrian rule over the West, he captured Arpad in 740 b.c; the rest of northern Syria was subjugated in the following year. A like course of events was repeated in 738 B.C., when Menahem of Israel bought him off for 1,000 talents of silver. In 734 b.c. Tiglath- Pileser again marched westward and attacked Philistia first to isolate Damascus. On the way he devastated Israel and made a part of its territory an Assyrian province (cf. II Kings xv. 29). This must have been in 733 B.C., since Tiglath- Pileser states under this year " they overthrew Pekah their king and I set Ausi [i.e. Hoshea] over them" (KB, ii. 33). This is not necessarily inconsistent with the Biblical narrative (cf. Battel's commentary on Kings, p. 267, Gottingen, 1900). Evidently Hoshea was the leader of an Assyrian party in Samaria which asserted itself after Pekah's defeat. (R. Kittel.)
Bibliography: The sources are II Kings xv. 27-31; Isa. vii. Consult the pertinent sections of the literature given under Ahab; Israel, History of; and Kings, Books of; Schrader, KAT, pp. 264 sqq. et passim, and COT, ii. 321 sqq.; DB, iii. 736-737; EB, iii. 3643; JE, ix. 584.
PEKAHIAH: Seventeenth king of Israel, son and successor of Menahem. His dates according to the old chronology are 760-758, according to Kamphausen and modern chronographers 737-736. The latter chronology is fixed by the annals of Tiglath-Pileser III., showing that Menahem was alive in 738, and that Pekah, Pekahiah's successor, was dethroned in 734-733. The source for Pekahiah's history is II Kings xv. 22-26, though corruptions have affected the passage; the picture of the northern kingdom given by Hosea is good for his period. The_ indications of the events under his successor Pekah (q.v.) are that Pekahiah desired to carry out his father's policy of friendship for the Assyrians, and that the opposing (national or anti- Assyrian) party was represented by Pekah (q.v.), the " captain " who assassinated Pekahiah and usurped the throne. Cheyne {EB, iii. 3643) questions the existence of Pekahiah, and supposes that his name in the succession is due to a literary misunderstanding of the longer form of the name of Pekah (Hebr. Pekayahu). But this would necessitate a revolution under Menahem, for which there is