We cannot, in short, resist the conclusion that the Church did, at some very early period (as the universality of these things proves), assimilate the old simple vestments, of set purpose, to the richer and more significant Aaronic ones. And if we ask _how_ early this was done, the answer is, that the first beginnings of it were made even in the lifetime of the Apostles. For Eusebius cites Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus (A.D. 198), as testifying of St. John at Ephesus, that "as a priest he wore the πέταλον, or plate of gold."[39] And Epiphanius[40] says the same of St. James, Bishop of Jerusalem. Later (c. 320), Eusebius addresses the priests as "wearing the long garment, the crown, and the priestly robe."[41] The plate of gold, on a bonnet or mitre, is still used at celebration by the Patriarch of Alexandria.[42] And the Armenian Church, whose traditions, where they differ from those of the rest of the world, are generally of immense antiquity, actually has the _breastplate_,[43] only with the names of the Twelve Apostles, instead of those of the Twelve Tribes. [39] Hist. Eccl. iii., 31: ὁς ἐγενήθη ἱερευς τὸ πέταλον πεφορεκώς. [40] 'De Hæresi,' 78. The very ancient Clementine Liturgy has "exchanging his vestment for a gorgeous one;" αμπρὰν ἐσθῆτα μετενδύς. [41] ποδήρη, στέφανον, στολήν. [42] Neale, 'Eastern Church,' Introd., p. 313. [43] Ibid., p. 307. We now see, then, how it came to pass that the stole is what it is in East and West; why it is so highly symbolical of ministerial power; why made so rich; why crossed on the _breast_ in celebrating; why, with all its richness, put _under_ the chasuble: scil. because, like the Aaronic breastplate, it was a memorial "_before God_" of the preciousness of God's people, whom the priest bore, as he should bear still, on his shoulder and on his heart, in his ministry of labour and of love. We see, again, why the "apparel" of the "amice" is so rich, because anciently of gold; why placed on the forehead, the seat of thought, scil. that the priest may be mindful of his "ministry of reconciliation;" and why accompanied with a prayer for the "helmet of salvation." And even the ordinary vestments, the surplice, and stole, and hood, derive a clear rationale and fitness from the same source. The _surplice_ (_superpellicium_), as Mr. Skinner teaches us,[44] is only the close tunic or "alb," so enlarged as conveniently to cover the _pellicium_, or coat of fur or skin which the clergy wore in the choir. The _stole_, crossed at celebration, loses its resemblance to the breastplate, and its allusion to the Cross, at the lower ministry of the Ordinary Office, being worn pendent. The _hood_ is the amice in simpler and less significant form, intended originally to be actually worn on the head, and still capable of being so; its varying form and colour only indicating the particular sodality to which the wearer belongs. [44] Letter to the 'Guardian,' Jan. 24, 1866.