"That it might be lawful now, under the Reformation, to call the holy Table by the name of Altar"

From Laudian Peter Heylyn's Antidotum Lincolniense (a 1637 polemical engagement in the 'altar controversy').  Here (chapter IV) Heylyn offers a rejoinder to a Puritan declaration that "under the Reformation" the Lord's Table may not be termed an altar.  This illustrates how Laudianism stood within a wider Reformation tradition.

Under the Reformation? And why so? Onely to make poor men beleeve, that Altars, and the Reformation, cannot stand together. But you are out in that, as in all the rest. The writer of the letter cannot but acknowledge, Altars doe stand still in the Lutherane Churches; and that the Apologie for the Augustane Confession doth allow it: the Doctors and Divines whereof, he doth acknowledge also to be sound Protestants, although they suffer Altars to stand. And in those other Churches of the Reformation, some of the chiefe Divines are farre more moderate in this point, than you wish they were. Oecolampadius doth allow the Eucharist to be called the Sacrament of the Altar: affirming also, that for peace sake they would not abhor from the title of sacrifice, if there were no deceit closely carryed under it: that there is no harme, in calling the Lords Table by the name of Altar. Zanchie more fully, Quod neque Christus, neque Apostoli prohibuerunt altaria, aut mandarunt quod mensis ligneis utantur; That neither Christ nor his Apostles have prohibited Altars, or enjoyned wooden Tables; and therefore that it is to be accounted a matter of indifference whether we use an Altar of stone, or a table of wood, modo absit superstitio, so that no superstition be conceived of either. So they determine of the point; not doubting, as it seemes, but that it might be lawfull now, under the Reformation, to call the holy Table by the name of Altar.