Moses ( Deuteronomy 17) warneth judges to keep them upright, and to look on no man’s person; that is, that they prefer not the high before the low, the great before the small, the rich before poor; his acquaintance, friend, kinsman, countryman, or one of his own nation, before a stranger, a friend or an alien, yea, or one of their own faith before an infidel; but that they look on the cause only, to judge indifferently. For the room that they are in, and the law that they execute, are God’s; which, as he hath made all, and is God of all, and all are his sons, even so is he judge over all, and will have all judged by his law indifferently, and to have the right of his law, and will avenge the wrong done unto the Turk or Saracen. For though they be not under the everlasting testament of God in Christ, as few of us which are called Christian be, and even no more than to whom God hath sent his promises, and poured his Spirit into their hearts to believe them, and through faith graven lust in their hearts to fulfill the law of love; yet are they under the testament of the law natural, which is the law of every land made for the common wealth there, and for peace and unity, that one may live by another: in which laws the infidels, if they keep them, have promises of worldly things. Whosoever, therefore, hindereth a very infidel from the right of that law, sinneth against God, and of him will God be avenged.
 "as few of us which are called Christian be" --- I may very well be mistaken, but I believe that many Protestants might possibly have been able to have greater tolerance for Jews than Catholics had had, because in their minds, the Catholics were idolaters and delinquent in Christian faith no less than Jews were. If anything, Catholics ought to have known better more than Jews. Therefore, the Protestants were able to have some degree of sympathy for the Jews. Now, Luther was nevertheless and inveterate enemy of the Jews and a notorious antisemite - he initially said that he could understand how Jews resisted conversion given Catholic "love" (i.e. pogroms and crusades), but once the Jews refused to convert to Catholicism, he railed that the Catholics had been right about the Jews all along - but as far as I can recall, he did not instigate any pogroms of the sort that Catholics were often guilty of. Calvinists were even more tolerant for Jews, especially because Calvin was more Hebrew Bible-oriented than Martin Luther. I quote The History of the Jews of the Netherlands (Littman Library), p. 58:
Calvin's positive attitude to the Hebrew Bible, no less than the idea of divine election [i.e. the politicized covenant / federalism that led ultimately to modern democracy - Michael Makovi] that plays so central a role in the Bible and in his own doctrine, opened the door for a symbolic identification with the Jews that would have been inconceivable to the Catholic, humanist, or Lutheran traditions, even though Calvin often tempered this identification with a disapproval of the blindness of the Jews that fluctuated between compassion, contempt, and animosity. There is no doubt, however, that Calvin never incited his disciples to hatred of the Jews. In his later sermons, we can even detect signs of a fuller appreciation of the similarities between the fate of the persecuted Reform Christians and that of contemporary Jewry. Ultimately, the inestimable value of Calvin's teachings lies in the self-criticism that enabled his followers to identify themselves with biblical or contemporary Jews; neither the most comfortable nor the least ambivalent angle from which to gain a new view of Jews and Judaism.Ibid., pp. 160f.:
The many religious polemics written by Sephardi Jews during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries reflect a variety of attitudes towards Christianity; from extreme and general hostility, seeing Christianity as an idolatrous faith, to drawing a distinction between 'idolatrous' Catholicism and Reform Christianity, which had restored the Bible's true meaning. But the fact that they preferred Reformed Christianity, mainly Calvinism, to Catholicism did not prevent Sephardi writers of apologetics from fiercely disputing the bases of Calvin's doctrine. The subject of predestination and of the reward of the righteous received special attention in their polemical writings. Nevertheless, even the sharpest Jewish critics of the time had a soft spot for the Dutch Calvinists. Thus Isaac Orobio de Castro said of the Dutch Republic, 'May our Lord God sustain these [United Dutch] Provinces and confer upon them a surfeit of divine blessings, so that the purity of their righteousness will ensure that no main is forced to resort to sticks and stones.' (Kaplan, From Christianity to Judaism, 252-62.) These words have a special significance when one recalls that they were not written for publication.
 "if they keep them, have promises of worldly things" --- Tyndall elsewhere explains in this book that moral and ethical works of love are a symptom and consequence of faith in G-d, but that faith alone brings salvation, and that as such, the benefit of moral deeds is only that it creates a comfortable life in this world. I.e., the motivation is purely utilitarian. RambaM in his Introduction to the Mishnah, Shemonah Peraqim, and Moreh Nevukhim evinces a similar belief; in the first-named work, for example, he says,
Common men exist for two reasons ; first. to do the work that is needed in the state in order that the actually intelligent man should be provided with all his wants and be able to pursue his studies; second, to accompany the wise lest they feel lonely, since the number of wise men is small.His Shemonah Peraqim aims to show - according to Professor Lawrence Kaplan's magisterial essay An Introduction To Maimonides’ "Eight Chapters" - nothing less than that moral virtue leads to intellectual virtue, and that the latter alone brings salvation. The Kuzari evinces a similar attitude; in 2:46 the Haver asks (according to the new translation of Rabbi Dr. Korobkin),
Do you now think that closeness [to G-d] comes simply through humility, lowlines, and the like?The Kuzari responds (2:47),
When coupled with righteous conduct, yes! So I believe and I've even read this in your Torah. It says, "What does the Lord your God ask of you except to fear [Him]?' [Devarim 10:12] and it says, 'What does God request from you except to do justice and love truth [and walk humbly with your God]?' [Michah 6:8] And there are many other similar citationsThe Haver replies (2:48), in a manner highly reminiscent of RambaM and Tyndall that,
These and others like them are the rational laws. They are prerequisites – inherently and sequentially – to the Divine Torah. No community of people can function without these laws. Even a community of robbers cannot exist unless equity governs them; if not, their association could not continue. ... just as an individual cannot survive without natural activities such as eating and drinking, moving and resting, sleeping and waking. ... For the Divine laws cannot be fulfilled without the prior fulfillment of the civil and rational laws... How can one who does not uphold these essentials [viz. the rational laws] uphold sacrifices, the Sabbath, circumcision, and the like? … [T]hey [viz. the ritual laws] are the laws which distinguish the Jewish people, in that they are additions to the rational laws, and it was through this distinction that they achieved the advantage of Divinity [i.e. the Inyan haEloki].Suffice it to say, all believing Jews should, I hope, object alike to this doctrine, whether it be of RambaM, the Kuzari, or Tyndall. Professor Harry Wolfson's Maimonides and Halevi: A Study in Typical Jewish Attitudes Towards Greek Philosophy in the Middle Ages" and Rabbi S. R. Hirsch's Nineteen Letters both quite rightly accuse RambaM of un-Jewish belief here, although they both strangely uphold the Kuzari as having more orthodox belief in this regard, which puzzles me. The Kuzari clearly believes that a Jew is "saved" by sacrificial offerings and the spirit of the Inyan ha-Eloki, which is more like RambaM's trust in the Active Intellect achieving salvation than a trust in moral behavior doing the same. The only difference I can see is that whereas the RambaM depends on belief achieving salvation via the Active Intellect - this being rather like Tyndall - by contrast, the Kuzari depends on sacramental and superstitious rituals (see Professor Menahem Kellner's Maimonides' Confrontation with Mysticism) to bring the Inyan ha-Eloki - this being rather like the Catholic notion decried by Tyndall that believes that superstitious rituals and sacraments will bring salvation. Tyndall is skeptical that any rituals are needed, but he says that if any are needed at all, let them at least be transparently explained to the laity as representing such-and-such cardinals of faith, with it being made clear that the faith itself, and not the ritual represented by it, alone brings salvation. This is very simply akin to the RambaM's view of ta'amei ha-mitzvot. So RambaM and Tyndall are clearly in one accord, and the Kuzari and the Catholics are clearly in one accord as well. According to Tyndall, the Catholics also believe that love of G-d (which both the Catholics and Tyndall anomalously conflate with moral deeds of love) will bring to faith in G-d, with the faith itself being that which saves. Tyndall agrees with the Catholics that faith in G-d alone saves, but he accuses the Catholics of pure idiocy in their belief that love leads to faith, whereas he believes that faith leads to love, as we see in the natural order of the world. But in neither of these two positions have we found the Jewish position that moral deeds in and of themselves, irrespective of belief, alone bring salvation.