“He brings yet another proof of the superiority of those who had _this Spirit of adoption. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of |God|._ I prove this, says he, not only from the voice itself, but also from the cause whence that voice proceeds. For the Spirit suggests the words while we thus speak, which he hath elsewhere exprest more plainly, God _hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father_! But what is, _The Spirit beareth witness with our spirit_? He means, the paraclete by the gift given unto us.” (But that this was an _extraordinary_ gift, we have no intimation at all, neither before nor after) *“And when _the Spirit beareth witness_, what doubt is left? If a man or an angel spake, some might doubt. But when the Most High beareth witness to us, who can doubt any longer?” Now let any reasonable man judge how far your Lordship has “translated the words of St. _Chrysostom_? And whether he reckons the testimony of the Spirit among the _miraculous_ gifts of the Holy Ghost?” Or among those _ordinary_ gifts of the Spirit of Christ, which if a man have not, he is none of his? 19. The fifth text your Lordship quotes, as describing a _miraculous_ gift of the Spirit, is _1 Corinthians xiv. 15._ To prove which, you comment on the 8th chapter to the _Romans_, particularly the 26th verse: and here again it is said, “That the interpretation assigned, is confirmed by several of the most eminent fathers, more especially the great _John Chrysostom_, as well as by _Origen_ and _Jerome upon the place_.” I cannot find St. _Jerome_ to have writ one line _upon the place_. And it is obvious, that St. _Chrysostom_ supposes, the whole context from the 17th to the 25th verse, to relate to all Christians in all ages. How this can be said to “confirm the interpretation assigned,” I cannot conjecture. Nay, it is remarkable, that he expounds the former part of the 26th verse, as describing the _ordinary_ privilege of all Christians. Thus far, therefore, he does not confirm, but overthrow “the interpretation before assigned.” But in the middle of the verse he breaks off, and expounds the latter part, as describing one of the _miraculous_ gifts. Yet I must do the justice to this venerable man to observe, he does not suppose that a _miraculous_ gift was given, only that the inspired might do what any _ordinary_ Christian might have done without it. (This interpretation, even of the latter part of the verse, he does in no wise confirm.) But that he might ask in every particular circumstance, the determinate thing which it was the will of God to give. 20. The third father by whom it is said this interpretation is confirmed is _Origen_. The first passage of his, which relates to _Romans viii. 26._ runs thus: (volume I. page 199.)