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.