"Calvin did not, on this account, modify his own opinion, but he could not make it prevail. On October 26th he wrote again to Farel: 'Tomorrow Servetus will be led out to execution. We have done our best to change the kind of death, but in vain. I shall tell thee when we meet why we had no success.' (Opera, XIV, pp. 590, 613-657). "Thus, what Calvin is most of all reproached with — the burning of Servetus — Calvin was quite opposed to. He is not responsible for it. He did what he could to save Servetus from mounting the pyre. But, what reprimands, more or less eloquent, has this pyre with its flames and smoke given rise to, made room for! The fact is that without the pyre the death of Servetus would have passed almost unnoticed." Doumérgue goes on to tell us that the death of Servetus was "the error of the time, an error for which Calvin was not particularly responsible. The sentence of condemnation to death was pronounced only after consultation with the Swiss Churches, several of which were far from being on good terms with Calvin (but all of which gave their consent) .... Besides, the judgment was pronounced by a Council in which the inveterate enemies of Calvin, the free thinkers, were in the majority."20 That Calvin himself rejected the responsibility is clear from his later writings. "From the time that Servetus was convicted of his heresy," said he, "I have not uttered a word about his punishment, as all honest men will bear witness."21 And in one of his later replies to an attack which had been made upon him, he says: "For what particular act of mine you accuse me of cruelty I am anxious to know. I myself know not that act, unless it be with reference to the death of your great master, Servetus. But that I myself earnestly entreated that he might not be put to death his judges themselves are witnesses, in the number of whom at that time two were his staunch favorites and defenders."22"...On August 20, 1553, Calvin wrote to Farel: 'I hope that Servetus will be condemned to death, but I desire that he should be spared the cruelty of the punishment' — he means that of fire. Farel replied to him on September 8th: 'I do not greatly approve that tenderness of heart,' and he goes on to warn him to be careful that 'in wishing that the cruelty of the punishment of Servetus be mitigated, thou art acting as a friend towards a man who is thy greatest enemy. But I pray thee to conduct thyself in such a manner that, in future, no one will have the boldness to publish such doctrines, and to give trouble with impunity for so long a time as this man has done.'
Rome condemned Servetus to death for denying the Trinity.
So the death tally stands at one for Calvin and millions plus one for Rome.
That's the issue I raised.
What I'm now confused by is the citation you provided. 'I hope that Servetus will be condemned to death, but I desire that he should be spared the cruelty of the punishment' OK, so Calvin wanted Servetus dead, that's what I understood all along.
"From the time that Servetus was convicted of his heresy," said he, "I have not uttered a word about his punishment, as all honest men will bear witness." Except for that letter he wrote in which Calvin said he wanted Servetus condemned to death, I suppose "uttered" is the key word here? He only wrote it, he didn't say it.
"For what particular act of mine you accuse me of cruelty I am anxious to know. I myself know not that act, unless it be with reference to the death of your great master, Servetus. But that I myself earnestly entreated that he might not be put to death his judges themselves are witnesses, in the number of whom at that time two were his staunch favorites and defenders." EXCEPT FOR THAT LETTER HE WROTE IN WHICH CALVIN HOPED SERVETUS WOULD BE PUT TO DEATH.
I want you to clearly understand what I think is the issue here: You wrote that Calvin wanted Servetus to be punished by a reprimand in a Sunday sermon. I googled around and found a reference that Calvin hoped Servetus would be put to death. You have now confirmed that Calvin wanted Servetus put to death but at the same time you've added two more elements. 1) Calvin claimed he didn't say anything. 2) Calvin claimed he entreated that Servetus not be put to death.
We now have FOUR things going on here:
1) You wrote that Calvin wanted Servetus reprimanded in a sermon.
2) A letter from Calvin hoping that Servetus would be put to death before the conviction.
3) A claim by Calvin that Calvin didn't say anything about the punishment of Servetus after the conviction.
4) A claim by Calvin that Calvin earnestly entreated that Servetus not be put to death.
Your linked source has "Calvin conducted the theological part of the trial", does that mean Calvin was the prosecutor or that he served as judge?
Would it be easier for you just to say you had the facts wrong originally rather than try to organize this can of worms?