Journal index

This is the third, closing section on the life of Countess Anna Teleki (1783-1851). In Part I we dealt with her youth, in Part II with her marriage to Simon Kemény, and in this last section with her widowhood. After the death of her husband, Anna Teleki moved to Enyed (Aiud), where her home, the “Burg”, became not only a centre of her family life but also of cultural and political life. She was responsible for the financial support of Farkas Bolyai. Her sons and sons-in-law played a nationally important role in the Union and during the War of Independence (1948). They were forced to flee from Enyed because of the attack of the Romanian Moț groups. After the War of Independence, the family went into hiding in Tiszaroff and Érmihályfalva (Valea lui Mihai). Here she received a letter from Farkas Bolyai evaluating the recent events of those days. She died on her return to Kolozsvár (Cluj-Napoca) in 1851. Her life and moral example deserve respect even by biblical standards.

After presenting the youth of Anna Teleki in Part I. of our study, in this second part, we deal with her marriage to Simon Kemény. Count Anna Teleki married Br. Simon Kemény Jr in 1801, who had previously studied at the University of Göttingen with his fellow student, Farkas Bolyai. Simon Kemény later remained Bolyai’s friend and spiritual companion. The young couple lived in Marosvásárhely (Târgu Mureş), Apanagyfalu (Nușeni) and in Csombord (Ciumbrud) in Lower-Alba county. They had six children, five of whom reached adulthood. Anna Teleki raised her children to virtues such as kindness, honesty, diligence, modesty. Her prayers and writings on educating of children have survived the centuries. With the support of the family, most of them had reached an outstanding career: Dániel Vajda, the later winemaker expert, János Szabó, portrait painter, Miklós Barabás, painter, and Károly Szász Sr., a mathematician and a lawyer. From 1823 until his death in 1826, a period considered by contemporaries the golden age of the county, Simon Kemény served as the administrator (chief lord) of Lower-Alba county.

The life of Anna Teleki (1783–1851), wife of Count Simon Kemény is presented in 3 parts. Part I deals with his youth, Part II with his marriage to Count Simon Kemény, Part III. with her widowed years.

The father of Anna Teleki was Count Domokos Teleki Sr., the later chancellor and memorial writer of Turda, her mother was Countess Judit Bethlen of Bethlen. Her mother dies when she was one years old, and her two brothers follow their mother soon. Until the age of six, she was raised in Apanagyfalu (Nușeni) and Cluj-Napoca by her maternal grandmother, Countess Júlia Wass from Czege, wife of Count Elek Bethlen. When her father remarries, she moves to Sárpatak (Șapartoc). At the age of 15, in 1798, she became the bride of the famous mineral collector, Count Domokos Teleki Jr., but her fiancé tragically died the same year.

In the first part of the essay, we summarise the constitutive elements of the concept of justification in the Reformation. These elements are the iustitia Christi aliena, Jesus’ substitutionary atonement as historical basis, Calvin’s unio mystica cum Christo and Luther’s “happy exchange”, the concept of sola fide, the principle that “faith is not a merit” and the “true faith contains true knowledge as well”, the forensic context of justification, imputatio is not infusio, the sharp distinction between justification and sanctification, the truth of simul iustus et peccator, the justification as existential experience and the adoption of all believers. In the second part, we inquire how Paul Tillich, in his Systematic Theology, reinterprets the concept of justification compared to the classic authors of the Reformation. It will be shown that Tillich basically changes the cognitive content of justification. The essay does not address the historical development of the concept of justification from Luther to Tillich, but concentrates only on the comparison of Tillich and the theology of the Reformation.

Paul Tillich reinterpreted Christology along the lines of the method of correlation. We need to ask whether this gigantic enterprise has indeed succeeded in preserving Christianity in its original form. I attempt to prove that a significant discrepancy exists between orthodox and Tillichian theology, especially with respect to dealing with the issue of the historical Jesus, the use of ontological concepts and “incarnation”. I therefore set forth the following observations: 1. Tillich mistakenly sets the reality of faith against fides historica and restricts the latter to just one dimensionless point. 2. The ontological concepts employed by Tillich contain contradictions and are unable to adequately express the infinite, qualitative differences between Christ and other human beings. 3. Tillichian Christology misinterprets the dogma of Chalcedon and is a modern, ontological version of Nestorianism.