dear friends, do any of you know any Brethren writers who deny that there will be a millennial temple, or who deny that sacrifices will be performed in it? Which writers who take the more common view would write most extensively on this topic? Thank-you for any advice.

Someone needs to get this ball rolling. 

To the first question, FF Bruce's commentary on Ezekiel in "The New Layman's Bible Commentary" seems to suggest that. 

For the second, possibly John Bloore in the "Numerical Bible" (he finished the commentary FW Grant had left incomplete at his death).

I would suggest that Bruce is not really representative of any "mainstream" Brethren writrers who deny the millennial temple. I'm not sure who influenced him.

Newberry and Ironside have some more-than-just-cursory-notes on Ezekiel's temple.

Agreed, Syd, though it would be interesting to define the parameters of the "mainstream." ; )

TW Ball would be someone who probably didn't expect a millennial temple and sacrifices, but we are lacking the pertinent documents to find out.

Ellison would also be outside the majority: 

https://biblicalstudies.gospelstudies.org.uk/pdf/ellison/ezekiel/ezekiel-complete.pdf

Hi Rodger et al. 
In the Believer's Magazine for April 2018 an avowedly controversial article on Ezekiel's Temple was published. 
It was written by Denis O'Hare of Perpignan (France). The title was "Prophecy Matters". 
The commonly held view that a literal reading of these chapters is preferable was rejected.

The following month an opposing article appeared (by invitation) which was supportive of the usual view. 
No incoming response from readers was provided, nor do we know if any were submitted. In the XX Century one would have seen active controversial engagement, but not in the Editorial regime of Phil Coulson !
How I would have longed for a proper rebuttal of the O'Hare notions, such as would have been forthcoming from William Hoste, for example. However that is not likely in the present theologically anaemic state of "Gospel Hall" assemblies. 

I don't think there is easy free access to this magazine issue in an archive system. 
 

Agreed. Our understanding isn't helped by denying discourse. What made the doctrine of Darby, Kelly, etc. so robust? They engaged with those who disagreed with them, sometimes over multiple exchanges. 

Just seen this...

I would imagine most, if not all, of the writers in the one volume commentary compiled by Cecil Howley along with FF Bruce and HL Ellison would  not understand  Ezekiel’s temple vision to predict a literal physical millennial temple. This commentary is currently  sold as the “New International Bible Commentary”  and was sold under different names including “The New Layman's Bible Commentary" mentioned above. I think all the NT contributors and a lot of the OT contributors had Brethren connections. These were all mid to late 20th people, when there was a decline of interest in dispensational teaching among the less tradition-bound assemblies in the UK.  Among them, Alan Nute and Stephen Short preached widely in English assemblies.

I think CF Hogg was probably an earlier example, but I’m not certain about that.

I cannot recall ever hearing anyone preaching a literal physical temple although a “well know brother”  once expressed that view to me privately.

Why would any of those early/mid-19th century “Brethren” writers imagine that Ezekiel’s prophecy of the millennial temple needed to be understood in mystical or symbolical terms? It’s the earth; an earthly kingdom; Israel; the nations; rule and government; worship...! And then, no temple but something else is a symbol of it, like the Church! I can imagine those men of yore, poring over the Scriptures, discussing, questioning, challenging, agreeing .... and I trust, led of the Spirit.

In his Believer’s Bible Commentary, William MacDonald gives quite an exhaustive account of the literal temple. He includes this extract from Paul Lee Tan’s, The Interpretation of Prophecy—“Non-literal interpreters maintain that this prophecy is a symbol of the Christian church. However, this major prophecy in the Book of Ezekiel contains descriptions, specifications, and measurements of the millennial Temple which are so exhaustive that one may actually make a sketch of it, just as one might of Solomon’s historic temple. In fact, E. Gardiner in Ellicott's Commentary on the Whole Bible succeeds in sketching the layout of the millennial Temple—all the while denying it is possible. This has prompted Alva J. McClain to comment that 'if an uninspired commentator can make some sense out of the architectural plan, doubtless the future builders working under divine guidance should have no trouble putting up the building.’”

Dr Tan did “read prophecy” at Dallas Seminary, so I suppose there’s a distinctive line back to Darby, Trotter, et al. But that doesn’t mean he didn’t consider different interpretations. Maybe we need a fresh look at the Temple. But often, like in the past, the new light that is sought may lead to the confusion, as it did, around topics like, “eternal life;” “eternal sonship;” “the righteousness of God;” and so forth. Nevertheless, we must never cease to search the Scriptures.