FRancis Junius, the Father, or Dujon, wrote a Comment which was printed at Geneva, in 1609, in fol. and in 1610, in 8vo.
Amandus Polanus, who died at Basil in 1610, has a Comment, together with a logical and theological Analysis; at Basil, 1592, in 8vo. See his Title in the Index. These two Authors, and John Drusius, are in good esteem for their Writings on Ezekiel.
To these we may add Lightfoot, and Lewis Capellus, from whom we have Descriptions of the Temple, as well as from Campegius Vitringa. Capellus wrote against Villalpandus, but with moderation. His Work is in the Polyglot of England; and in the large Criticks, tom. 9. p. 3716.
Theodore Bibliander wrote an Exposition of the eight last Chapters; wherein there is mention made of rebuilding the Temple, of the Kingdom of Israel, and the Partition of the Holy Land. This we find in Conrad Pelican’s Comment, printed at Zurich in 1532. See their Title in the Index.
William Lyser, who published an Explanation of the 14th Chapter, ver. 9. printed at Wittemberg, 1637, in 4to. See upon Isaiah.
Matthias Haffenreffer, who wrote a Comment on the nine last Chapters; wherein he treats of the Structure of the Temple, of the Measures, Weights, and ours; and the Prefaces of others on this Book.
Joan. Clodii de Magia Sagittarum Nabuchodonosor, ad Ezech. 21. 26. printed at Wittemberg, in 1675, in 4to. and in the first Tome of the Philological Dissertations. He was a German Lutheran, and wrote about 1672. See his Title in the Index.
See our Comment on the same Place, and our Dissertation, wherein we inquire whether the ten Tribes return’d from their Captivity; occasioned by what Ezekiel says in chap. 16. 55. 37. 16, 19, &c. in the Collection of our Dissertations, tom. 2. p. 243. and our Dissertation on Gog and Magog, Ezek. 38. & seq. in the same Collection, tom. 2. p. 352. See also our Description of the Temple in the Dictionary, under the Article Temple.
Salom. Deylingii in Ezech. 9. 14. Signa Tau, &c. Obser. Sacr. tom. 1. Ejusdem de eodem argumento, Observ. tom. 2. c. 49.
See likewise his Disputation on the 14th Verse of the 8th Chapter, de Fletu Thammuz; printed separately at Lipsick, in 1704, in 4to. See his Title in the Index.
Ejusdem in Ezech. 20. 25. de Statutis non bonis, Obser. Sacr. tom. 2. c. 24.
Ejusdem in Ezech. 33. 25, 26. Qui in sanguine comeditis, tom. 2. c. 25.
John Braunius, de Fletu super Thammuz, in his Selecta Sacra, printed at Amsterdam, in 1700, in 4to. He was a German of the Palatinate, and a Lutheran. He died in 1708.
David Flud, a Dutch Calvinist, has handled the same Subject, printed with a Letter to Braunius, ibid. 1686, in 12mo. He wrote, besides, a philological and theological Explanation of chap. 47. ver. 11. at Lewarden, 1684.
Henry Gebhard has treated of Gog and Magog, at Gryphiswald, 1695, in 4to. as likewise has Andrew Musculus, at Frankfort, in 8vo. and John Gerhard, in his Chiliasmus, printed at Jena, 1667, in 4to.
Joannes Andreas has a Dissertation upon the Cushions and Pillows mentioned in chap. 13. ver. 18. at Helmstadt, 1702, in 4to.
Samuel Dauderstat, de Antichristo Orientali, which he explains of Gog and Magog; at Lipsick, 1663, in 4to. He was a German Lutheran, and Minister General at Frisinguen towards the end of the 17th Century.
Michael Buckenroder has also written upon the Irruption to be made by Gog and Magog into the Mountains of Israel; at Jena, 1664, in 4to. He was a German Lutheran.
Andrew Habichhorst has treated de Statutis non bonis, upon chap. 20. ver. 25. at Rostock, 1699, in 4to.
Adami Rechemberg, Dissertatio de Bibliographia Ezechielis, ad cap. 2. 8. & seq. at Lipsick, 1710, in 4to. He was a German of Misnia, and a Lutheran, towards the end of the 17th Century. Sebastian Schmid, wrote the Hieroglyphes of the Cherubins Chariot, spoken of in Ezekiel’s Vision; at Strasburg, 1670, in 4to.
John Meyer, a Dutch Calvinist, and Professor of Divinity in the University of Hardewick, wrote a theological Dissertation upon the nine last Chapters, relating to the Temple, the City, and the Partition of the Promised Land; printed at Hardwick, in 1707, in 4to. He undertakes to prove here that the Time of fulfilling these last Prophecies is not yet come, but will come hereafter. This he thinks certain: But he does not know whether all these Predictions are to be understood in a literal Sense. Sometimes he seems to affirm they ought; and again, at other times, confesses that he has nothing hereupon to offer beyond Conjectures.