"They had received the apostles' doctrine by a succession of bishops": Rogers on the historic succession

Rogers's Conformist account is not only evident in the narrative he gives of the Elizabethan Succession in the Preface of The Catholic Doctrine of the Church of England.  It is also very evident in his actual reading of the Articles.  

For example, in his discussion of Article 36, 'Of the Consecration of Bishops and Ministers', Rogers gives a significant statement on episcopal succession:

They gloried much, and greatly, that they had received the apostles' doctrine by a succession of bishops, that they were the successors in the apostles' doctrine of the godly bishops, and that bishops succeeded in the room of apostles.

Their godly monuments, and worthy labours and books yet extant, do shew, that bishop was of Lyons, Irenaeus; of Antioch, Ignatius; of Carthage, Cyprian; of Hierusalem, Cyril; of Alexandria, Athanasius; Basil, of Caesarea; of all Thracia, Asia, and Pontus, Chrysostom; Hilary of Poitiers; Augustine of Hippo; Ambrose of Milan: all of these most notable instruments for the advancement of God's honour and glory in their days.

Finally, from the apostles' days hitherto there never wanted a succession of bishops, neither in the east nor western churches.

It is important to note here that this is very similar to Laud's account of the episcopal succession: a good and historic sign of apostolic doctrine, but not necessary.  Hence, Rogers does not refer to episcopal succession in his discussion of Article XIX on the "marks and tokens" of the visible Church nor in his discussion of Article XXIII on the necessity of ordination for authority to minister the Word and Sacraments.  In fact, regarding Article XXIII, he makes a point of referring to the Helvetic, Belgic, Gallican, and Augsburg Confessions - none of which, of course, required episcopal ordination - declaring "So testify with us the true churches elsewhere in the world".  None of this, however, prevents Rogers from making a claim for episcopal succession that Laud would also make.  As Laud stated:

that from the Apostles' times, in all ages, in all places, the Church was governed by Bishops.

In other words, the Conformist claim is that episcopal succession is a historic, good, and seemly but not necessary sign of succession in apostolic doctrine.  This was also characteristic of much Laudian understanding of the episcopal succession, as the words of Laud and Bramhall demonstrate.