At such a Council who would as a matter of course be present? One may
mention in the first instance Mirza Huseyn 'Ali, titled as
Baha-'ullah, and his half-brother, Mirza Yahya, otherwise known as
Subh-i-Ezel, also Jenab-i-'Azim, Jenab-i-Bazir, Mirza Asadu'llah
[Footnote: Gobineau, however, thinks that Mirza Asadu'llah was not
present at the (assumed) Council.] (Dayyan), Sayyid Yahya (of Darab),
and others similarly honoured by the original Bab. And who were the
candidates for this terribly responsible post? Several may have wished
to be brought forward, but one candidate, according to the scholar
mentioned, overshadowed the rest. This was Mirza Yahya (of Nur),
better known as Subh-i-Ezel.

The claims of this young man were based on a nomination-document now
in the possession of Prof. Browne, and have been supported by a letter
given in a French version by Mons. Nicolas. Forgery, however, has
played such a great part in written documents of the East that I
hesitate to recognize the genuineness of this nomination. And I think
it very improbable that any company of intensely earnest men should
have accepted the document in preference to the evidence of their own
knowledge respecting the inadequate endowments of Subh-i-Ezel.

No doubt the responsibilities of the pontificate would be shared.
There would be a 'Gate' and there would be a 'Point.' The deficiencies
of the 'Gate' might be made good by the 'Point.' Moreover, the
'Letters of the Living' were important personages; their advice could
hardly be rejected. Still the gravity and variety of the duties
devolving upon the 'Gate' and the 'Point' give us an uneasy sense that
Subh-i-Ezel was not adequate to either of these posts, and cannot
have been appointed to either of them by the Council. The probability
is that the arrangement already made was further sanctioned, viz. that