In an article that appeared in The Biblical Repertory and Theological Review in the year 1833, Archibald Alexander translated a large section of N. Arnold's refutation of the Racovian Catechism. Alexander saw the relevance of the older Reformed response to the Socinians as he wrestled with the emerging theological errors of his own day. He saw that heresy never dies and concluded:
One thing must have struck the reader as remarkable, namely, that the modern arguments, by which error attempts to defend her cause, are precisely the same as those employed for centuries past. We know, indeed, that those who now adopt and advocate these opinions, greatly dislike this comparison of modern theories with ancient heresies, and denounce it as invidious.
But why should it be so considered? Or why should they be unwilling to acknowledge the conformity of their opinions with those of ancient times, when the agreement is so manifest, not only in the doctrines themselves, but in the arguments and interpretations of Scripture, by which they attempt to support them?