“He that doeth evyl let him do evyl still: and he which is fylthy let him be fylthy still: and he that is righteous let him be more righteous: and he that is holy let him be more holy.”

http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=re+22:11&t=tyn&sr=1&l=en

“That” and “which” as relative pronouns are pretty much interchangeable in the English of Tyndale and those who built on his work, though “that” is much more common. There is no particular distinction in the meaning of the clauses that suggests a reason for the variation. MAYBE it was just for the sake of STYLISTIC variation.

I did find ONE discussion of these relative pronouns (at least the first page of one!) which argues that by the time of the KJV (also Tyndale? I’m not sure) the normal pattern was “which” with nouns, “that” with pronouns.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-049X(190404%2F09)43%3A177%3C278%3ATHUOTR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D

Of course, that would mean you would expect “that” in this verse (as opposed to “which” for a noun in “Our Father, WHICH art in heaven”). But it still leaves the one case of “which” unexplained.