From Zion’s Watch Tower alone there is no evidence that the Bible students participated in evangelisation regularly or in an organised way prior to 1881. The emphasis in the magazine articles was firmly on the doctrinal and devotional aspect of Bible student life. It appears that Paton and Jones and other contributors to Zion’s Watch Tower preferred this emphasis, and their articles showed more of an inward-looking concern with the group itself. Paton’s book was designed for an Adventist audience and there is little indication of a strong desire on his part (or on Babour’s before him) to propagate their message, or evangelise for converts – the initiative for their preaching tours appears to have come from Russell. This ‘inactivity’ was consistent with their deterministic world-view and their elitist conception of the ‘little flock’. Russell did tentatively suggest that his readers might distribute tracts, but it was only in 1881 that Russell’s emphasis on selling came to the fore. [His British spelling and punctuation retained.]
As is most of what Rogerson wrote either in his book or his D.Phil thesis, this is tainted with misstatements, wrong conclusions and simple error. He suggests here that neither Barbour nor Paton were evangelizers. He based this on what he did not find in Zion’s Watch Tower. We can, to a small degree, excuse him for missing key statements in ZWT because he was dependent on the 1920 reprints which omit many of the earliest readers’ letters, but any excuse for his ignorance is moderated by clear statements of evangelical intent found in the reprinted volumes. Some of this we previously described.
Paton evangelized near his Michigan home, preaching in nearby churches to whoever would have him. He never gave up his self-identity as a clergyman, collecting fees for his ministry. This limited his ministry to congregations willing to host him and pay for the privilege, but he did evangelize. Day Dawn is an edited collection of his sermons. That this is so demonstrates a regular, evangelical ministry. We should observe too – as we did in the Introductory Essay – that Rogerson misidentifies Adventism. We doubt that Rogerson read Day Dawn; if he did he was totally unaware of American Literalism and how it differed from Millerite Adventism. Paton’s book addressed some Adventist issues, but in a critical way. The book’s content is Literalist. [Readers may want to refresh their memories by reviewing appropriate sections of volume one.]
There are grammar issues in this paragraph and in the remainder of Rogeron’s thesis. [Note the misplaced modifier.] Typically, students who struggle with grammar have reading comprehension problems. But we have no certain way of knowing why Rogerson’s work is defective. Perhaps we owe some of its problems to his reliance on R. Rawe who provided him with documentation he did not have when he wrote his book. We don’t know.
We addressed Barbour, Russell and Paton’s evangelism in volume one and in chapter two of this volume. There is no need to revisit that, except to say Rogerson got it wrong. But he also tells us that: “It appears that Paton and Jones and other contributors to Zion’s Watch Tower preferred this emphasis, and their articles showed more of an inward-looking concern with the group itself.” This ignores half the evidence found in The Watch Tower. Until his defection, Jones regularly evangelized. He was part of a group of speakers willing to respond to requests for preaching, and he arranged his own venues as well. [See chapter 2, this volume.] Enough of this can be found in The Watch Tower reprints that Rogerson’s folly is inexcusable. Before we pass on to what stimulated evangelism among Watch Tower adherent groups, we should note that Rogerson’s claim that “it was only in 1881 that Russell’s emphasis on selling came to the fore.” is wrong, which at this point should surprise no-one. None of the Bible Students Tracts and certainly not the two small books Tabernacle Teachings and Food for Thinking Christians were sold to anyone. They were freely given, Russell bearing the expense. Only over a decade later was Tabernacle Teachings retitled as Tabernacle Shadows sold at a nominal price.
Also, we reject Rogerson’s description of Watch Tower theology as deterministic. Determinism suggests that events unfold beyond human control Watch Tower belief was that each was responsible for the decisions they made. Russell and his associates rejected Presbyterian fatalism. Rogerson’s description of Watch Tower belief as elitist is meant to be inflammatory. Watch Tower belief was that God would ultimately save and bring to heavenly or earthly paradise nearly every human who ever lived. To us, this is not elitism.
Watch Tower Evangelism
 A. T. Rogerson: A Sociological Analysis of the Origin and Development of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and their Schismatic Groups, D.Phil. thesis, Oxford University, 1972, page 51.
 The Watchtower of December 15, 1990, page 28, pointed to the Reprints indices are “To this day ... the principal means of finding material presented in early issues of the Watch Tower magazine.” That is, of course, no longer true.
 Rogerson does not mention Rawe’s assistance, but he cites material which in 1972 was available only to Rawe and one of our authors. We did not provide it to Rogerson.