I think the general manner in which Burgess’ Westminster Assembly explained baptism, and its nature, ends the discussion immediately on presumptive regeneration, and that we should be for it, “That it [baptism] is instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ: That it is a seal of the covenant of grace, of our engrafting into Christ, and of our union with him, of remission of sins, regeneration, adoption, and life eternal.” I think this is clear. Westminster made no distinction between professing Christians and infants. Baptism is baptism in the way Westminster explains it.
