Do any Church Fathers directly connect "speaking in tongues" with anything other than existing human languages?

One of the arguments made by those who believe that the gift of speaking in tongues has ceased (cessationists) is that the "tongues" spoken of in both Acts and 1 Corinthians 12–14 are "real" human languages. For example, C. Norman Sellers, in *Biblical Tongues*, writes: > The New Testament references to tongues require that we understand them as referring to real languages [...] There is sufficient scriptural evidence to prove that the tongues in 1 Corinthians are the same as those in Acts chapter 2 and refer to real languages. Charismatics will generally reject this analysis; J. Rodman Williams, for example, argues that "it would have been pointless to speak foreign languages" at Caesarea ([Acts 10:45–46](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+10%3A45-46&version=ESV)) and Ephesus ([Acts 19:6](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+19%3A6&version=ESV)) in *Renewal Theology* (II, p214). In light of this disagreement, I wonder – **did any church fathers clearly and specifically indicate that the "speaking in tongues" of either Acts or 1 Corinthians was *not* a "real" human language?** Here are some clarifying parameters: - I'm interested in church fathers as typically defined – those who followed the apostles up to John of Damascus. I'm fine with including Tertullian and Origen in this group. - From my reading I don't think any pre-Augustine authors clearly make this connection, so I'm asking about church fathers more broadly. But writings of the early fathers would be particularly interesting. - By "clearly and specifically," I mean that the writer *goes beyond* the biblical text and indicates that the "tongues" were not human languages. - Charismatics might argue that the biblical text itself is clear on this point, and that therefore if a church father merely quotes the biblical text, it indicates that he believes that "tongues" were not exclusively human language. I want more than that.