In replying to the argument that it would be better to lie concerning an innocent man whose life was sought by an enemy, or by an unjust accuser, than to betray him to his death, Augustine said courageously:  “How much braver,... how much more excellent, to say, ’I will neither betray nor lie.’” “This,” he said, “did a former bishop of the Church of Tagaste, Firmus by name, and even more firm in will.  For when he was asked by command of the emperor, through officers sent by him, for a man who was taking refuge with him, and whom he kept in hiding with all possible care, he made answer to their questions, that he could neither tell a lie nor betray a man; and when he had suffered so many torments of body (for as yet emperors were not Christians), he stood firm in his purpose.  Thereupon, being brought before the emperor, his conduct appeared so admirable that he without any difficulty obtained a pardon for the man whom he was trying to save.  What conduct could be more brave and constant?"[1]

[Footnote 1:  See The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, first series (Am. ed.), III., 408.]

The treatise “Against Lying” was written by Augustine with special reference to the practice and teaching of the sect of Priscillianists.  These Christians “affirmed, with some other of the theosophic sects, that falsehood was allowable for a holy end.  Absolute veracity was only binding between fellow-members of their sect."[1] Hence it was claimed by some other Christians that it would be fair to shut out Priscillianists from a right to have only truth spoken to them, since they would not admit that it is always binding between man and man.  This view of truthfulness as merely a social obligation Augustine utterly repudiated; as, indeed, must be the case with every one who reckons lying a sin in and of itself.  Augustine considered, in this treatise, various hypothetical cases, in which the telling of the truth might result in death to a sick man, while the telling of a falsehood might save his life.  He said frankly:  “And who can bear men casting up to him what a mischief it is to shun a lie that might save life, and to choose truth which might murder a man?  I am moved by this objection exceedingly, but it were doubtful whether also wisely.”  Yet he sees that it were never safe to choose sin as a means to good, in preference to truth and right with all their consequences.

[Footnote 1:  See Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Chris. Biog., IV., 478, art.  “Priscillianus.”]

Jerome having, like many others, adopted Origen’s explanation of the scene between Peter and Paul at Antioch, Augustine wrote to him in protest against such teaching, with its implied approval of deceit and falsehood.[1] A correspondence on this subject was continued between these two Fathers for years;[2] and finally Jerome was led to adopt Augustine’s view of the matter,[3] and also to condemn Origen for his loose views as to the duty of veracity.[4] But however Jerome might vacillate in his theory, as in his practice, concerning the permanent obligations of truthfulness, Augustine stood firm from first to last in the position which is justified by the teachings of the Bible and by the moral sense of the human race as a whole,—­that a lie is always a lie and always a sin, and that a lie can never be justified as a means to even the best of ends.