Read the document
The Wittenberg Advice (Wittenberger Ratschlag) · December 10, 1539; printed in Corpus Reformatorum III, cols. 856-863
Summarized rather than quoted: the signed opinion declines to condemn a second marriage as against divine law, treats it as dispensable in a case of necessity, and binds the landgrave to keep it secret.
Put it in context
The document matters because the reformers were asked a narrow biblical question by a prince who intended to act on their answer. They did not identify a divine prohibition, but they did surround their permission with warnings and conditions.
Their demand for secrecy is part of the record. It may reflect political prudence, pastoral fear, concern for scandal, or awareness that the advice could not be defended publicly. The document does not let us choose among those motives with certainty.
Standard historical listings associate nine advisers with the final counsel: Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, Antonius Corvinus, Adam Krafft, Johannes Lening, Justus Winter, Dionysius Melander, and Balthasar Raidt. “Signed by Luther, Melanchthon, and Bucer” is therefore incomplete. The exact manuscript roles—drafter, adviser, approver, or signatory—should be kept distinct where the critical edition permits.
What is disputed
The secrecy surrounding the advice is a documented fact whose meaning is contested. It may indicate political prudence, pastoral caution, or awareness that the counsel would not survive publication, and the document cannot adjudicate between those readings.
How I read this record
This is my conclusion from the source, not part of the quotation.
In a conditioned private opinion, the assembled advisers declined to call a second marriage contrary to divine law while strongly discouraging a public precedent. The document establishes that private judgment; it does not turn an exceptional dispensation into general Reformation doctrine.
Open the sources
- Corpus Reformatorum III at archive.org ↗ · Columns 856-863, the Advice of December 10, 1539.