5028# “他把衣裳留在我这里”意味着作证。因为“把衣裳留在某人这里”在属灵意义上，就是留下某人曾经接近过的证据，这一点在第5019节已有说明。
在内在意义中，“衣裳”代表真理，而“留下衣裳”则意味着抽离最外层的真理（参5008节）。这里之所以说是作证，是因为当最外层真理被留下或抽离时，这就成了自然之人对属灵之人的一种证据。属灵之人与自然之人好像通过最外层的真理结合，但实际上并未真正结合（参5008节）；因为当属灵之人解释这种外在的真理时，彼此的不同就会显现出来。为更好地说明这一点，下面将举出第5008节中已经提到的一些例子。
【2】属灵之人和属自然之人都主张应当善待贫穷者、寡妇和孤儿，但属灵之人认为，不应善待那些品行恶劣的贫穷者、寡妇和孤儿，也不应善待那些自称为此类人但其实依然富有的人，因为这些人只是借用这些名称来欺骗他人。因此，属灵之人进一步认为，圣言中所说的贫穷者、寡妇和孤儿，实际上是指在属灵意义上真正符合这些特质的人。
相比之下，属自然之人则认为，应当善待所有名义上的贫穷者、寡妇和孤儿，并坚信圣言中指的就是这些人。他并不关心这些人是善是恶，也不理解、甚至不愿意了解什么叫“属灵意义上的这样的人”。由此可见，关于“应当善待贫穷者、寡妇和孤儿”这一最外层的真理，表面上两种人看法一致，但当加以解释时，实质上却大不相同。当这种不同显现出来，两者因此分离时，这种分离就成为属自然之人指控属灵之人的证据或见证，他据此说属灵之人错误，而属灵之人则已无力自我辩护。由此可以清楚看出，“衣裳”在这里也象征着证据或见证。
【3】还可以举一个例子：属灵之人和属自然之人都认为应当善待邻舍，也都认为每个人都是邻舍，但属灵之人认为，每个人作为邻舍的关系和层级是有区别的，并且如果仅仅因为某人自称为邻舍而去善待恶人，那其实是在伤害真正的邻舍。属自然之人在“应当善待邻舍”这个最外层的真理上与属灵之人表面一致，也同样承认“每个人都是邻舍”，但他认为，只有那些对自己有利的人才算邻舍，根本不在意对方是善是恶。由此可见，在最外层真理上，两者似乎是联合的，但实际上并没有真正的结合，一旦对此作出解释，分歧就会显现出来；这时，这一最外层的真理就成了属自然之人用来指控属灵之人的证据，好像属灵之人欺骗了他。其它类似情况也都是如此。
5028.“他就把衣裳丢在我这里”表证据。这从“把他的衣裳丢在她那里”的含义清楚可知，也就是说，“把他的衣裳丢在她那里”是一个证据，证明它曾靠近过（5019节）。“衣裳”在内义上表示真理，“丢下衣裳”表示夺走最外层的真理（5008节）。它在此之所以表示证据或见证，证明它曾靠近过，是因为最外层的真理当被丢弃或夺走时，就为属世人提供了反对属灵人的证据。属世人似乎通过最外层的真理与属灵人结合，而实际上并未结合（参看5009节）；原因在于，当属灵人解释这真理时，这二者之间缺乏任何相似性就变得显而易见了。
前面（5008节）所引证的例子有助于说明这一点。
属灵人和属世人一样，也会说要向穷人、寡妇、孤儿行善；但属灵人却认为不可向邪恶，或自称贫穷，其实却很富有的穷人、寡妇或孤儿行善；因为在这种情况下，他们就被这些纯粹的名称迷惑了。属灵人由此得出以下结论：在圣言中，“穷人”、“寡妇”和“孤儿”表示那些灵性上如此的人。但属世人却认为要向字面上所称呼的穷人、寡妇和孤儿行善；圣言所指的就是这些人，而非其他人；他也不关心他们是恶的，还是善的，不知道，也不想知道何为属灵层面的穷人、寡妇和孤儿。由此明显可知，这最外层的真理，即要向穷人、寡妇、孤儿行善，对属灵人和属世人来说，看似一样；但当加以解释时，这种相似性便不存在了。当缺乏任何相似性，这二者由此彼此分离时，最外层的真理作为证明属灵人曾靠近过的证据或见证而服务于属世人。因此，属世人会说谎反对不再拥有任何用来保护自己的事物的属灵人。所以，这个例子也有助于说明“衣裳”为何并以哪种方式表示证据或见证。
再举一例。属灵人也像属世人那样说，要向邻舍行善，又说每个人都是邻舍；然而，他却认为一个人成为邻舍的那个方面和程度不同于另一个人的；因恶人自称邻舍而向恶人行善，便是向邻舍行恶。在认同最外层的真理，即要向邻舍行善，以及每个人都是邻舍等真理方面，属世人与属灵人相结合。但属世人认为凡支持他的，就是邻舍，却不关心他是善的，还是恶的。由此也明显可知，就这个最外层的真理而言，这二者表面上结合在一起；然而，真正的结合并不存在；一解释这个真理，他们就会彼此分离。一旦他们分离，最外层的真理作为反对属灵人的证据，证明属灵人一直在拿它开玩笑而服务于属世人。其它例子（5008节）也一样。
Potts(1905-1910) 5028
5028. That he left his garment by me. That this signifies testification, is evident from the signification of "leaving his garment by her," that is to say, as a witness that it made an approach (n. 5019). A "garment" in the internal sense signifies truth, and "leaving the garment," taking away ultimate truth (n. 5008). That it here signifies a witness or testification that it made an approach, is because ultimate truth, when it is left or taken away, is a witness to the natural man against the spiritual. That the natural man is as it were conjoined with the spiritual man by ultimate truth, but still is not conjoined, may be seen above (n. 5009); for when the spiritual man unfolds this truth, the dissimilarity becomes apparent. [2] The examples adduced above (n. 5008), may serve for illustration. The spiritual man as well as the natural says that aid should be given to the poor, to widows, and to orphans; but the spiritual man thinks that aid should not be given to the poor, to widows, and to orphans who are evil, and who call themselves needy and yet are rich, for in this way they would deceive by mere names; and so he concludes that by the "poor," the "widows," and the "orphans" in the Word, are meant those who are spiritually so. But the natural man thinks that aid should be given to the poor, widows, and orphans who are so called, and that these and no others are meant in the Word; neither does he care whether they are evil or good, not knowing nor wishing to know what it is to be so spiritually. It is plain from this that the ultimate truth, that aid should be given to the poor, widows, and orphans, appears similar to both; but when unfolded, it is dissimilar; and when it becomes dissimilar and causes disjunction, it serves the natural man as a witness or testification that the spiritual man had made an approach; hence he speaks what is false against the spiritual man, who no longer has anything by which to defend himself. So it is clear whence and in what respect a "garment" signifies also a witness or testification. [3] Let us take also this example. The spiritual man as well as the natural man says that aid should be given to the neighbor, and he also says that everyone is the neighbor; but he thinks that one person is the neighbor in a different respect and degree than another, and that to give aid to an evil person because he calls himself neighbor, is to do harm to the neighbor. The natural man conjoins himself with the spiritual in the ultimate truth that aid should be given to the neighbor, and also in this, that every man is the neighbor; but he thinks that he who favors him is the neighbor, not caring whether he is good or evil. From this too it is plain that in this ultimate truth they are apparently conjoined, but that nevertheless there is no conjunction; and that as soon as the matter is explained, there is disjunction. And then this ultimate truth serves the natural man as a witness against the spiritual man for as it were mocking at him. So in all other cases.
Elliott(1983-1999) 5028
5028. That he left his garment with me' means proof. This is clear from the meaning of 'leaving his garment with her' as evidence that an approach had been made, dealt with in 5019. 'A garment' in the internal sense means truth, and 'leaving a garment' means removing outermost truth, 5008. The reason why evidence or proof that an approach had been made is meant here is that when outermost truth is left behind or removed it supplies to the natural man evidence against the spiritual man. For it seems as though the spiritual man is joined to the natural man by means of outermost truth, but it is not in fact so joined, see 5008 - the reason being that when the spiritual man explains that truth the lack of any similarity between the two becomes apparent. But let the examples introduced previously in 5008 serve to illustrate this.
[2] The spiritual man says, just as the natural man does, that good should be done to the poor, widows, and orphans; but the spiritual man thinks that good should not be done to the poor, widows, or orphans who are evil, or who call themselves poor when in fact they are rich; for then they would mislead simply by the words they use. From this the spiritual man is led to deduce that the poor, widows, and orphans mentioned in the Word mean those who are spiritually so. But the natural man thinks that good should be done to the poor, widows, and orphans who are literally called such, and that none other than these are meant in the Word; nor is he interested in whether they are evil or good people. What the poor, widows, and orphans may be on a spiritual level he neither knows nor wishes to know. From this one may see that this outermost truth - that good should be done to the poor, widows, and orphans - appears to be the same with both the spiritual man and the natural man; but when it is explained no such similarity exists. But when the lack of any similarity comes out, the two are consequently parted from each other, and then outermost truth serves the natural man as evidence or proof that an approach has been made. Therefore it speaks falsely against the spiritual man who no longer has anything with which to protect himself. Accordingly this example too serves to show why and in what way 'a garment' means evidence or proof.
[3] Take another example. The spiritual man says, just as the natural man does, that good should be done to the neighbour. He also says that everyone is his neighbour, yet he thinks that one person is his neighbour in a different respect and degree from another, and that to do good to an evil person because he calls himself his neighbour is to do evil to the neighbour. The natural man joins the spiritual man in subscribing to that outermost truth - the truth that good should be done to the neighbour, and also the truth that everyone is the neighbour. But he supposes that the neighbour is anyone who is favourably disposed towards him; and he has no interest in whether that person is good or evil. This example too shows that the two appear to be joined together so far as outermost truth is concerned, but that there is no real joining together, also that as soon as that truth is explained they become parted from each other. Once they are parted outermost truth serves the natural man as evidence against the spiritual man that the latter has been making sport of it so to speak. The same can be seen in all the other examples [in 5008].
Latin(1748-1756) 5028
5028. `Et reliquit vestem suam apud me': quod significet testificationem, constat (c)a significatione `relinquere vestem suam apud se' quod sit testis quod accesserit, de qua {1} n. 5019;`vestis' in sensu interno significat verum, et `relinquere vestem' abstrahere verum ultimum, n. 5008; quod hic significet testem seu testificationem quod accesserit, est quia velim ultimum cum relinquitur seu abstrahitur testis est naturali homini contra spiritualem; quod spiritualis homo cum naturali homine quasi conjungatur per verum ultimum, at quod usque non conjungatur {2}, videatur n. (x)5008; cum enim spiritualis homo explicat illud verum, tunc apparet dissimilitudo; (o)sed illustrationi sint exempla, quae prius n. 5008 allata sunt: [2] spiritualis homo aeque ac naturalis dicit quod pauperibus, viduis (o)et pupillis benefaciendum, sed (t)spiritualis homo cogitat quod non benefaciendum pauperibus, viduis (o)et pupillis qui mali sunt, et qui se vocant tales et usque divites sunt, sic enim per sola nomina deciperent; et inde concludit quod per pauperes, viduas (o)et pupillos in Verbo intelligantur qui spiritualiter tales sunt;
naturalis vero homo cogitat quod benefaciendum pauperibus, viduis et pupillis qui ita nominantur, et quod illi non alii intelligantur in Verbo, et num mali sint vel boni, non curat; quid spiritualiter talis esse, non scit nec scire vult; inde patet quod ultimum verum, nempe quod benefaciendum pauperibus, viduis et pupillis, utrique appareat simile, sed cum explicatur quod sit dissimile; et cum fit dissimile et inde disjunctio, inservit id naturali homini pro teste seu testificatione quod accesserit, inde falsum loquitur contra spiritualem hominem, qui non amplius quid habet per quod se defendat; liquet sic unde et in quo respectu `vestis' etiam significat {3} testem seu testificationem. [3] Sit quoque exemplum: spiritualis homo aeque ac naturalis homo dicit quod proximo benefaciendum, et quoque dicit quod omnis homo sit proximus sed cogitat quod unus in alio respectu et gradu proximus sit quam alter, et quod benefacere malo quia se vocat proximum, sit malefacere proximo; naturalis homo se conjungit cum spirituali in ultimo illo vero quod nempe benefaciendum proximo, et quoque in illo quod omnis homo sit proximus, sed cogitat quod ille proximus sit qui ei favet, non curans sive bonus sit sive malus; inde quoque patet quod in ultimo vero apparenter conjungantur, sed usque quod nulla conjunctio sit et {4}, ut primum explicatur, {5} sit disjunctio; inservit tunc ultimum illud verum naturali homini pro teste contra spiritualem quod sicut illuserit. Similiter in omnibus reliquis. @1 i supra$ @2 i sed appareat naturali homini quasi conjungatur$ @3 significet$ @4 at$ @5 i quod$