It is for the sake of passers-by that I feel the need to point out that the Scottish "Presbyterian kirk", the Church of Scotland, has nothing to do with the Scottish Episcopal Church except the words "Scotland" and "Church",
The Scottish Reformation, unlike the English, was Calvinist to the core. But when James VI of Scotland became James I of England he proceeded to introduce an episcopacy (his philosophy was "No bishop, no king."), making the Church of Scotland even more disjointed than the Church of England. So the Presbyterian church in Scotland ended up with an episcopalian overlay by 1625. When the Non-juror schism occured (those bishops who held to their oath to James II, who was not Protestant had in communion with the Vatican, and would not take the oath to the Protestants William and Mary), the vast majority of the bishops in Scotland held with the non-jurors. In response, the Scottish Crown and Parliament issued the Comprehension Act of 1690, which disestablished the Scottish episcopate. Incumbent bishops would be allowed to retain their benefices only on taking the oath to Willam and Mary, and even then the bishops were banned from governing the church, which now was placed fully in the hands of the Presbyterians, who allowed the former bishops to take their place among the clergy only after making a declaration of adherence to presbyterian principles.
The Scottish bishops who never submitted to Presbyterianism remained in the non-juror schism and waited for a king they considered legitimate, in the meantime forming an Episcopalian church that had no head and no legal status, and formiing a liturgy that would be the one that the Americans would later adopt. The newly united British Crown and Parliament had to pass the Scottish Episcopalians Act of 1711 to allow the Episcopalians to worship (until 1707, Scotland was a seperate country, hence the disabilities on the Anglicans in Scotland), but was modified further to in 1745 and 1748 to exclude clergymen ordained in Scotland. When the Stuart heir recognized George III in 1788, a move was made to reunite the Non-juror church with the tolerated church of Scotland: in 1792 the penal disabilities were abolished, but the ecclesiastical ones only in 1864, just in time for your Lambeth Conference.
Since you won't take my word on it:
The Scottish Episcopal Church is the representative of the Anglican Communion in Scotland. It is the result of a history in the Scottish Church of struggles throughout the 16th and 17th centuries between congregational and episcopal forms of liturgy and government. When the dust finally settled, in 1689, Scotland was left with an established church, the Church of Scotland, which is Presbyterian and has no bishops, and an unestablished, independent, Scottish Episcopal Church, which retained the traditional episcopal (meaning, with bishops) forms, and the traditional liturgy. This Church, while closely related to the Church of England in liturgical, structural, and many other ways, nevertheless was often at odds with the English government, as may be seen in the history of one of its parishes, Old St. Paul's in Edinburgh. http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Scotland.htm
The Scottish Episcopal Church was thus the first of the many Churches in the Anglican Communion to be independent of the Church of England.
and that the Oxford Movement has nothing at all to do with the non-jurors,
In 1717 the Non-jurors split over introducing the mixed chalice, the epiclesis, the sacrificail intent of the liturgy, invocations of saints and prayers for the departed and took to pampheleering to argue for and against these Apostolic practices:The result was the 1764 Scottish Communion Office. In Scotland, the Book of Common Prayer had just been introduced, as only those who held to it benifited from protection of the Crown and the Scottish Episcopalian Act. The non-jurors took to defending in tracts and pamphlets these Catholic usages and Tradition and their restoration, as in the Scottish Communion Office. The Oxford Movement followed this example, in a similar cause.
The opponent of the Oxford Movement, Arb. Tait of Canterbury, was a Scot who was baptized in the Presbyterian Kirk, and confirmed in the Church of England his first year at Oxford.
and that there was no need to talk of an Anglican communion before 1792 because there was but a single jurisdiction up to that point.
depends on how you define jurisdiction: you had the schismatic non-jurors since 1689, joined by the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States at least by 1784. What happened in 1792?
The current anomaly in the communion is to be deplored, and the impending full division to be deplored. But when it comes to that, a division on the basis of theology is better justified than the situation obtaining in American Orthodoxy.
You mean where we are uniting on our theology?http://www.assemblyofbishops.org/about/canonical-jurisdictions
And as far as backing the wrong horse is concerned: Even if I were Orthodox it would not excuse me saying what you have said here. You have an obligation to the same integrity, which you have shirked throughout this exchange.
Yes, well, pretending all is well (which the Mayflower Madam once called "the reaction of the typical WASP) hasn't served the Lambeth invitees very well, has it?