Did the authors of the Westminster Standards accept Roman Catholic baptisms as valid?

In the original version of the [Westminster Standards](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Standards) , a highly regarded Protestant doctrinal statement, there's a line that is particularly famous: > There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. **Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist**, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God. ([Confession, 25.6](https://reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/)) However, in my experience in churches holding to the Westminster Standards, baptisms performed by Roman Catholics are normally considered valid. That is, if an adult seeking entry into a Presbyterian church was baptized as an infant by a Roman Catholic priest, he will not be "baptized again" – his RC baptism is considered valid. But it seems unlikely that this was the view of the Westminster Divines, given their view of the pope. So, I wonder: **did the authors of the Westminster Confession regard Roman Catholic baptisms as valid?** If yes, they apparently believed that (1) the pope is the Antichrist and yet (2) those voluntarily aligned with him and under his authority (RC priests) can perform valid baptisms. How is this apparent contradiction explained? Another possible explanation is that they *didn't* accept Roman Catholic baptisms, but as later generations [became less willing to accept the "Pope is Antichrist" statement](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/52703/21576) , it has become more common in today's Reformed churches to accept RC baptisms. What did the Westminster Divines think about the validity of Roman Catholic baptisms? How was that view informed by their view of the papacy?