that is to say, into the second
degree. We have then clear proof that already in the seventeenth century
Freemasonry had ceased to be an association composed exclusively of men
concerned with building, although eminent architects ranked high in the
Order; Inigo Jones is said to have been Grand Master under James I, and
Sir Christopher Wren to have occupied the same position from about 1685
to 1702. But it was not until 1703 that the Lodge of St. Paul in London
officially announced "that the privileges of Masonry should no longer be
restricted to operative Masons, but extended to men of various
professions, provided they were regularly approved and initiated into
the Order."[275]

This was followed in 1717 by the great _coup d'etat_ when Grand Lodge
was founded, and Speculative Masonry, which we now know as Freemasonry,
was established on a settled basis with a ritual, rules, and
constitution drawn up in due form. It is at this important date that the
official history of Freemasonry begins.

But before pursuing the course of the Order through what is known as the
"Grand Lodge Era," it is necessary to go back and enquire into the
origins of the philosophy that was now combined with the system of
operative masonry. This is the point on which opinions are divided and
to which the various theories summarized in the _Masonic Cyclopcaedia_
relate. Let us examine each of these in turn.

Speculative Masonry

According to certain sceptics concerning the mysteries of Freemasonry,
the system inaugurated in 1717 had no existence before that date, but
"was devised, promulgated, and palmed upon the world by Dr. Desaguliers,
Dr. Anderson, and others, who then founded the Grand Lodge of England."
Mr. Paton, in an admirable little pamphlet,[276] has shown the futility
of this contention and also the injustice of representing the founders
of Grand Lodge as perpetrating so gross a deception.

This 1717 theory ascribes to men of the highest character the
invention of a system of mere imposture.... It was brought forward
with pretensions which its framers knew to be false pretensions of
high antiquity; whereas ... it had newly been invented in their
studies. Is this likely? Or is it reasonable to ascribe such
conduct to honourable men, without even assigning a probable motive
for it?

We have indeed only to study masonic ritual--which is open to everyone
to read--in order to arrive at the same