The First Book of Logical Exercises by Andreas Libavius

how often do they name a cause, which is an effect. How often do they take the whole definition for the form, and countless other things, which you will learn by usage, and you will recognize how futile and ridiculous are the things that many blather about. But those who dare to object to you about Philip's Melanchthon's treatise—which, unless it is corrected most laboriously, contains the foundations of many heresies—they would prefer the name of Philip eradicated from the entire Theology; they doubt where Philip might be now. They use Aristotle as a pretext for Philip; and yet are they so stubborn in logical matters?
Ph. They hunt for praise of simplicity in this way, and think that by this one thing they are the best Christians and Evangelicals, if they explain things as simply as possible.
9. Objection: whether a Theologian ought to be a logician.

Some also deny that a Theologian ought to be a Dialectician, following the example of the ancients. I have heard some say that the subtleties handed down in our booklet are mere trifles.
10. Objection: whether emended logic creates Calvinists.

And since the subtleties are those of sophists, they think Calvinists are created by this art; and that sacrosanct mysteries are depraved by logical arguments, when these are not of reason, which logic professes, but of faith. That logic is concerned with words; it does not weigh the things.
Pretext of simple doctrine.

Or. Breathe for a little, Philomathes. Not all things are to be breathed out in one breath. The simplicity you mention is mere ἀμάθεια ignorance...