Did John Calvin believe that the grandchildren of a believer are entitled to infant baptism?

In Calvinism, the children of believers are considered "members of the covenant" and as a sign of that covenant, they are baptized as infants. Practically speaking, this means that if at least one parent is a Christian and member of the church, then the child may be baptized. But sometimes, people other than the parents might be considered "responsible" for that child's spiritual well-being, and thus a child could be baptized even if neither parent is a Christian/church member. Sometimes those other people are grandparents, but the issue quickly gets tricky – for example, what about the cases of [household slaves](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/42009/21576) or [foster children](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/40756/21576) ? Usually, the litmus test is that the "sponsors" of the child must be in a situation to train and nurture the child. However, I recently saw the claim that John Calvin believed that descendants of Christians, even several generations removed, were entitled to the sign of the covenant, *without* the requirement of a Christian "sponsor." So, for example, the grandchild of a deceased member of the church would be entitled to infant baptism, even if no one else in the family is a Christian. My initial reaction to this claim was skepticism, but on reflection I'm wondering if this would fit well within Calvin's system. **Did Calvin believe that descendants of church members, even to two or more generations, were *entitled* to infant baptism, even without a Christian guardian?** Where in his works does he argue for or against such a position?