This implies a preparation period of nineteen years, and if we take this statement with a parallel one, we can, I think, have no doubt that the Bāb expected the assumption, not immediate however, of the reins of government by the Promised One. The parallel statement is as follows, according to the same Bahai scholar.
'God only knoweth his age. But the time of his proclamation after mine is the number Waḥid (=19, cabbalistically), and whenever he cometh during this period, accept him.' [Footnote: Bayan, Brit. Mus. Text, p. 151.]
Another passage may be quoted by the kindness of Mirza 'Ali Akbar. It shows that the Bāb has doubts whether the Great Manifestation will occur in the lifetime of Baha-'ullah and Ṣubḥ-i-Ezel (one or other of whom is addressed by the Bāb in this letter). The following words are an extract:—
'And if God hath not manifested His greatness in thy days, then act in accordance with that which hath descended (i.e. been revealed), and never change a word in the verses of God.
'This is the order of God in the Sublime Book; ordain in accordance with that which hath descended, and never change the orders of God, that men may not make variations in God's religion.'
NON-FINALITY OF REVELATION
Not less important than the question of the Bāb's appointment of his successor is that of his own view of the finality or non-finality of his revelation. The Bayan does not leave this in uncertainty. The Ḳur'an of the Bābīs expressly states that a new Manifestation takes place whenever there is a call for it (ii. 9, vi. 13); successive revelations are like the same sun arising day after day (iv. 12, vii. 15, viii. 1). The Bāb's believers therefore are not confined to a revelation constantly becoming less and less applicable to the spiritual wants of the present age. And very large discretionary powers are vested in 'Him whom He will make manifest,' extending even to the abrogation of the commands of the Bayan (iii. 3).
EARLY CHRISTIANITY AND BAHAISM AND BUDDHISM
The comparisons sometimes drawn between the history of nascent Christianity and that of early Bahaism are somewhat misleading. 'Ali Muḥammad of Shiraz was more than a mere forerunner of the Promised Saviour; he was not merely John the Baptist—he was the Messiah, All-wise and Almighty, himself. True, he was of a humble mind, and recognized that what he might ordain would not necessarily be suitable for a less transitional age, but the same may be said—if our written records may be trusted—of Jesus Christ. For Jesus was partly his own forerunner, and antiquated his own words.
It is no doubt a singular coincidence that both 'Ali Muḥammad and Jesus Christ are reported to have addressed these words to a disciple: 'To-day thou shalt be with me in Paradise.' But if the Crucifixion is unhistorical—and there is, I fear, considerable probability that it is—what is the value of this coincidence?