Precarious hypotheses: as if the Reformed made neglect harmless, or denied the virtue Christ and Paul tie to baptism
The precarious supporting claims are these. First: that the Reformed do not count neglect of baptism as harmful. They do count it harmful — harmful to those who neglect it against Christ's command.
Second: that we deny baptism the full virtue Christ gives it (Mark 16:16) or Paul gives it (Titus 3:5), as if Christ binds salvation to holy baptism and Paul binds regeneration to it.
But Christ says nothing there about infants being regenerated by baptism. He speaks of prior faith — and so of prior regenerating grace — in adults the apostles were to baptize. Salvation hangs not on baptism but on the believer's act: whoever has not believed will be condemned.
For Paul too baptism is the washing of regeneration, set against Jewish washings — which neither seal regeneration nor serve as a moral means, under the New Testament, for beginning that regeneration in infants and carrying it on in adults.
Latin
HYPOTHESES precariæ sunt, 1. Reformatos non censere neglectum Baptismi damnosum; Qui censent omnino, sed damnosum negligentibus, contra mandatum Christi. 2. Non tribuere nos omnem Baptismo virtutem, quam tribuit Christus, Marc. XVI.16. vel Paulus Tit. III.5. quasi alliget ille salutem, hic regenerationem S. Baptismo. Quum tamen nihil Christus, de Infantibus per Baptismum regenerandis; Sed de fide praevia, adeoque & praevia regenerationis gratia, in Adultis per Apostolos baptizandis; Suspensa etiam salute, non a Bapt. sed ab actu credentis; qui non crediderit, damnabitur. Paulo etiam Baptismus λουτρὸν παλιγγενεσίας, opposite ad lotiones Judaicas, quae nec obsignativae Regenerat. nec medium morale sub Novo T. illi inchoandae in Infantibus, continuandae in Adultis.