Do Reformed paedobaptists call for the baptism of household servants, just as Abraham's servants were circumcised? In Genesis 17:9–13 we read:


  9 And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. (ESV) 


I understand this passage to say that male household slaves and the male children of household slaves were to be circumcised, regardless of any "statement of faith."

In modern times we don't see many examples of household slaves or servants.  However, several hundred years passed between the beginning of the Reformation and widespread prohibitions on chattel slavery in the West.  Other forms of generational household servitude continued even longer.

Many Reformers affirm that baptism is the new sign of the covenant, replacing circumcision, and therefore practice infant baptism (or paedobaptism) for the children of believers (WCF 28-4).  Thus, my questions: 


Do any Reformed paedobaptists, past or present, explicitly argue that members of one's household, including one's household slaves or servants, ought to be baptized (even if they make no statement of faith)?
In the absence of any examples of (1), do any Reformed paedobaptists, past or present, explicitly explain why household slaves and servants ought not to be baptized?
In a limited sense, yes, some Reformed paedobaptists have supported this: the presentation of slave children for baptism by their masters was practiced and supported in the Presbyterian Church in the USA in the antebellum period.  However, I find no evidence that adult slaves were baptized except upon their own conversion (that is, not when the master was converted, nor when the slave was purchased by a Christian master).

A resolution by the General Assembly in 1816 concluded that slave children should be presented for baptism by their masters if the latter were in a position to "train them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord":


  
  That it is the duty of masters who are members of the Church, to present the children of parents in servitude to the ordinance of baptism, provided they are in a situation to train them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, thus securing them the rich advantages which the gospel promises.
  That it is the duty of christian ministers to inculcate this doctrine, and to baptise all children of this description, when presented to them by their masters.
  


The Synod of New York and Philadelphia made a similar declaration in 1786, holding that Christian masters had the "duty" to have "children of their household" baptized, even those "born of parents not in the communion of any Church."



The Testimony and Practice of the Presbyterian Church in Reference to American Slavery, pages 122 and 123.