It is a dioecious perennial plant, producing annually several long twining roughish striated stems, which twist from left to right, are often 15 to 20 feet long, and climb freely over hedges and bushes. The leaves are stalked, opposite, 3-5 lobed, and coarsely serrate, and bear a general resemblance to those of the vine, but are, as well as the whole plant, rough to the touch; the upper leaves are sometimes scarcely divided,.or quite entire. The stipules are interpetiolar, each consisting of two lateral ones united, or rarely with the tips free. The male inflorescence (fig. 1, A) forms a panicle; the flowers consist of a small greenish five parted perianth (a) enclosing five stamens, whose anthers (ά) open by terminal slits. The female inflorescence (fig. 1, B) is less conspicuous in the young state. The catkin or strobile consists of a number of small acute bracts, with two sessile ovaries at their base, each subtended by a rounded bractlet (c). Both the bracts and bractlets enlarge greatly during the development of the ovary, and form, when fully grown, the membranous scales of the strobile (fig. 2, a). The bracts can then only be distinguished from the bractlets by being rather more acute and more strongly veined. The perianth (fig. 1, tZ) is short, cup-shaped, undivided, and closely applied to the ovary, which it ultimately encloses. In the young strobile the two purple hairy styles (e) of each ovary project beyond the bracts. The ovary contains a single exalbuminous seed, containing a spirally-coiled embryo (fig. 2, b).

The ovary and the base of the bracts are covered with a yellowish powder, consisting of minute sessile grains (see vol. iv. p. 91, fig. 48) called lupulin or lupulinic glands (see vol. i. p. 381). These glands (fig. 2, c) are stated by Stoddart to be from - 2 ^- σ to τ ∣ π inch in diameter, like flattened subovate little saucers in shape, and attached to a short pedicel; by the expansion of the central portion during growth their apex ultimately becomes convex instead of concave. The upper or hemispherical portion consists of a delicate continuous membrane, and the lower part of tabular polyhedric cells. The stalk is not perceptible in the gland as found in commerce. When fresh the gland is seen to be filled with a yellowish or dark brown liquid; this on drying contracts in bulk and forms a central mass. The contents of these glands, according to Lermer, are chiefly wax (myricylic palmitate) and resins, one of which is crystalline and unites with bases; with these the bitter acid of hops is present in small proportion. It is to these lupulinic glands that the medicinal properties of the hop are chiefly due. By careful sifting, about 1 oz. may be obtained from 1 lb of hops, but the East Kent variety is said to yield more than the Sussex hops.

In hop gardens a few male plants, usually three or four to an acre, are sometimes planted, that number being deemed sufficient to fertilize the female flowers. It is stated, however, that the female plant produces sufficient male flowers for self-fertilization (Royle). The blossoms are produced in August, and the strobiles are fit for gathering from the beginning of September to the middle of October, according to the weather.

The cultivation of hops for use in the manufacture of beer dates from an early period. In the 8th and 9th centuries hop gardens, called “humularia” or “humuleta,” existed in France and Germany. In the herbarium of Λpuleius (1050 a.d.), the hop (“hymele”) is said to have been put in the usual drinks of England on account of its good qualities. Until the 16th century, however, hops appear to have been grown in a very fitful manner, and to a limited extent, generally only for private consumption; but after the commencement of the 17 th century the cultivation increased rapidly. At the present time England produces a larger quantity than any other country in Europe. Formerly several plants were used as well as hops to season ale, hence the name “alehoof” for Hepeta Glechoma, and “alecost” for Balsαmita vulgaris. The sweet gale, Myrica Gale, and the sage, Salvia offi,cinalis, were also similarly employed. Various hop substitutes, in the form of powder, have been offered in commerce of late years, most of which appear to have quassia as a chief ingredient.

The young tender tops of the hop are in Belgium cut off in spring and eaten like asparagus, and are forced from December to February. They are not only considered a delicacy, but valuable as a diet for anaemic, scrofulous, and rachitic persons.

Hops are extensively cultivated in parts of New England, New York, and Michigan, and most of the hops consumed in the United States are supplied by those districts. Although the hop was introduced into America nearly 250 years ago, and its cultivation encouraged by legislative enactments in 1657, it is only about seventy-five years since its culture was commenced on an extensive scale; but from that time the progress has been rapid, and hops have been grown in nearly every State in the Union. The amount produced in the United States was estimated in 1840 at 6196 bales, in 1850 at 17,485, in 1860 at 54,960, and in 18/0 at 127,283. As in England, the hop is subject to disease and blight, and in consequence the crop is variable; thus, in 1869, 69,463 bales were exported from New York and none imported, and in 1873 only 315 bales were exported and 20,885 imported. The English cluster and grape hops seem to be most generally cultivated in New York and Wisconsin. Hops are also grown largely in Belgium, Prussia, France, Wiirtemberg, and central Germany. In 1879 only 7153 cwts. of hops were exported from England chiefly to Australia and other British possessions, while 262,765 cwts. were imported, of which 108,306 cwts. were derived from the United States, 63,485 cwts. from Belgium, 50,567 from Germany, 26,796 from Holland, and smaller quantities from France and British North America. The first packages of hops collected in England often fetch an extravagant price, and are sometimes disposed of with remarkable celerity. The first pocket of hops gathered in 1879 is said to have been picked, dried, sent to London, sold by auction, subjected to hydraulic pressure, packed and banded with iron, covered with three coats of paint, and despatched to an Indian mail steamer—all within twenty-four hours. The better qualities are usually packed in fine and the inferior in coarse sacking. In Germany two varieties of the hop are distinguished, the August and the autumn hop, the former being preferred.

The stem of the hop abounds in fibre similar to that of hemp and flax, and has been used in Sweden in the production of a strong durable white cloth. Hitherto it has been usual to steep the stem in water during the whole winter in order to separate the fibre easily. A much quicker process has, however, been patented, by which the fibre can be speedily extracted. This process consists in boiling the stems first for three quarters of an hour in alkaline lye, and then, after rinsing in water, for the same time in acetic acid; the fibre is thus obtained in a state fit for bleaching. The leaves, stem, and root possess also an astringent property, and their use for tanning purposes was hence at one time patented in England. The leaves have also been recommended as fodder in the fresh state, mixed with other materials, and are said to increase the quantity and improve the quality of milk yielded by cows. The stems or “bine” are usually burned in the hop garden. The spent hops from breweries form excellent manure for light soils, and together with the leaves should be returned to the hop-gardens, the materials absorbed from the ground by the hop plant being thus in some measure restored to it.

By distillation with water, hops yield 0 ’ 9 per cent, of a volatile oil, of a greenish colour if from fresh, but reddish-brown if from old hops. Exposed to the air it resinifies. This oil, according to Personne, contains valerol, C 6 H 10 O, which soon passes into valerianic acid, 0 ’ 1 to 047 of this acid having been found by Méhu in the lupulinic glands. The unpleasant odour of old hops is due to this change, which may be prevented or retarded by exposure to the action of sulphurous acid gas. For medicinal use fresh hops which have neither undergone this change nor been treated with sulphurous acid should be used. For brewing purposes, according to Liebig, the use of sulphured hops is not objectionable. The bitter acid principle, C 32 H 50 O 7 , to which hops probably owe their tonic properties, although noticed by Payen, was first obtained in the pure state by Lermer in 1863. It crystallizes in large rhombic prisms, and is soluble in ether. It has been variously called lupulin, ]upuline, lupulite, and humulin. Griessmayer (1874) has shown that hops contain also in small proportion a liquid volatile alkaloid, not yet analysed, which has the odour of conia; to this alkaloid its narcotic property is perhaps due. The same chemist found tri methylamine in hops. Etti (1876-78) has found in the scales of the hop strobiles an astringent principle, hurnulοtaηηic acid, C 00 H 48 O 26 , which is incapable of precipitating gelatin, but which, when boiled in alcohol or water or heated to 130° C., changes to a red substance, phlobaplιeη, C 50 H 4β O 25 , whose solution in alcohol possesses that property. Etti likewise obtained a crystalline white and an amorphous brown resin, also malate, citrate,nitrate, phosphate, and sulphate of potassium, and pectic acid.

The use of hops in medicine dates from a very early period. Coles, in }As,History of Plants (1657), says—“They are good to cleanse the kidneys of gravel and provoke urine; they likewise open obstructions of the liver and spleen, and cleanse the blood and loosen the belly; and as they cleanse the blood, so consequently they help to cure eruptions of the skin.” Brooke’s Dispensatory^ 1753)recommends them also as an alterative, and as a remedy for hypochondriasis. Hops are, however, but little used in medicine at the present day, although official in the British and United Stites Pharmacopoeias. According to Bartholow hops increase the action of the heart, excite the cutaneous circulation, and cause diaphoresis. A slight cerebral excitement is first produced, soon followed by a disposition to sleep. Hops also possess some anaphrodisiac properties. The preparations used are the tincture, infusion, and extract, the oleoresin, and the lupulinic glands. The drug is generally employed either as a stomachic in dyspepsia, or to allay nervous irritability or cerebral excitement in delirium tremens, where the use of opium is inadmissible. A combination of the tinctures of lupulin and capsicum is said to be one of the best substitutes for alcoholic stimulants when their habitual use is to be discontinued. A pillow stuffed with hops forms a well-known domestic remedy for sleeplessness, and a bag of hops dipped in hot water is often used as an external application to relieve pain or inflammation, especially of the abdominal organs.

See Fliickiger and Hanbury, Phαrmαcοgrαρhiα, 2d ed., p. 551; Bentley and Trimen, Mcd. Plants, No. 230; Griessmayer, Amer. Journ. Pharm., Aug. 1876, p. 360; Etti, in Dingier’s Polyt. Jowrn. cexxvii. p. 491; ccxxviii. pp. 354, 357; Bartholow, Mat. Mcd., p. 362; Watson, Rural Encyclopaedia, ii. pp. 686-699; Darwin, Climbing Plants, p. 2; Scot, Perf,te Plalforme of a Hoppe Garden, 1576; Freake, Humulus Lupulus in Gout, 1806; La Belgique Horticole, 1851, t. i. 311; Perin, Culture du Houblon, Strasburg, 1874; and for details as to the cultivation and varieties and the picking and preparation of hops, and their employment in the making of beer, see Agriculture, vol. i. p. 381, and Brewing, vol. iv. pp. 272-273. (E. Μ. H.)

HOPKINS, Samuel (1721-1803), the theologian from whom the Hopkinsians or Hopkinsian Calvinists take their name, was born at Waterbury, Connecticut, on September 17, 1721. About his fifteenth year he entered Yale College, where he graduated in 1741; he afterwards studied divinity at Northampton with Jonathan Edwards; and in 1743 he was ordained pastor of the church at Housatonnuc (now Great Barrington), Massachusetts. There in the midst of a small settlement of only thirty families he laboured for six and twenty years, preaching, studying, and writing, until in 1769 he was dismissed from his office on the alleged ground of want of funds for his support. He next began to preach in Newport, Rhode Island, where, in 1770, he was settled as pastor of a small congregation, and where, with an interval from 1776 to 1780, caused by the occupation of the British, he continued to labour until about the close of the century. In 1799 he had an attack of paralysis, from which he never wholly recovered; but he continued to preach occasionally, and with unimpaired mental vigour, almost until his death, which occurred on December 20,1803.

While in vigour of intellect and in strength and purity of moral tone hardly inferior to Jonathan Edwards, Hopkins considerably excelled his master in force and energy of character. To him belongs the honour of having been one of the first to stir up and organize political action against slavery; and to his persistent though bitterly opposed efforts are chiefly to be attributed the law of 1774, which forbade the importation of negroes into New England, as also that of 1784, which declared that all children of slaves born after the following March should be free. He was the author of numerous pamphlets, addresses, and sermons; and he also published lives of Jonathan Edwards, Susannah Anthony, and Mrs Osborn. But his distinctive theological tenets are chiefly to be sought in his important work, the System of Theology, which, published in 1791, has had an influence hardly inferior to that exercised by the writings of Edwards himself. They may be summed up as follows :— (1) God is the efficient cause of all the volitions of the human heart, whether these be good or evil; (2) the guilt of Adam’s first sin lies upon Adam alone; moral corruption consists exclusively in the opposition offered by the human heart to the doing of that which it is really and fully capable of doing; (3) all virtue or true holiness consists in disinterested benevolence; (4) all sin consists in selfishness; (5) reconciliation and redemption are fundamentally distinct; the former opens the gate of mercy, the latter applies to individuals Christ’s saving benefits; (6) effectual calling consists in a willingness to allow himself to be saved, produced in the heart of the sinner by God; (7) although the righteousness of Christ is the sole ground of the sinner’s justification, yet is that righteousness not imputed; (8) repentance is prior in point of time to the exercise of faith in Christ.

. The works of Hopkins, first published in two volumes at Boston in 1791, appeared in a 2d edition in 1811. The latest and best edition is that of 1852, in three volumes, also publi-hed at Boston; to it there is prefixed a biographical sketch by Professor Park of Andover.

That all true virtue or real holiness consists in disinterested benevolence. The object of benevolence is universal being, including God, and all intelligent creatures. It wishes and seeks the good of every individual, so far as is consistent with the greatest good of the whole, which is comprised in the glory of God, and the perfection and happiness of his kingdom. The law of God is the standard of all moral rectitude or holiness. This is reduced into love to God and to our neighbour; and universal good will comprehends all the love to God, our neighbour, and ourselves, required in the divine law, and therefore must be the whole of holy obedience. Let any person reflect on what are the particular branches of true piety, and he will find that disinterested affection is the distinguishing characteristic of each. For instance, all which distinguishes pious fear from the fear of the wicked consists in love. Holy gratitude is nothing but good will to God and man, ourselves included, excited by a view of the good will and kindness of God. Justice, truth, and faithfulness, are comprised in universal benevolence. So are temperance and chastity; for an undue indulgence of our appetites and passions is contrary to benevolence, as tending to hurt ourselves or others, and so opposite to the general good, and the divine command. In short, all virtue is nothing but love to God and our neighbour, made perfect in all its genuine exercises and expressions.

That all sin consists in selfishness. By this is meant an interested affection, by which a person sets himself up as the supreme or only object of regard; and nothing is lovely in his view, unless suited to promote his private interest. This self-love is, in its whole nature, and every degree of it, enmity against God: it is not subject to the law of God, and it is the only affection that can oppose it. It is the foundation of all spiritual blindness, and the source of all idolatry and false religion. It is the foundation of all covetousness and sensuality; of all falsehood, injustice, and oppression; as it excites mankind, by undue methods, to invade the property of others. Self-love produces all the violent passions, envy, wrath, clamour, and evil speaking; and every thing contrary to the divine law is briefly comprehended in this fruitful source of iniquity, self-love.

That there are no promises of regenerating grace made to the actions of the unregenerate. For as far as men act from self-love, they act from a bad end; for those who have no true love to God really fulfil no duty when they attend on the externals of religion. Also, that inability, which consists in disinclination, never renders any thing improper to be the subject of a command.

That the impotency of sinners, with respect to believing in Christ, is not natural, but moral; for it is a plain dictate of common sense, that natural impossibility excludes all blame. But an unwilling mind is universally considered as a crime, and not as an excuse; and is the very thing wherein our wickedness consists.--Also,

That in order to faith in Christ, a sinner must approve in his heart of the divine conduct, even though God should cast him off for ever; which, however, neither implies love to misery, nor hatred of happiness. But as a particle of water is small, in comparison of a generous stream, so the man of humility feels small before the great family of his fellow creatures. He values his soul; but, when he compares it to the great soul of mankind, he almost forgets and loses sight of it: for the governing principle of his heart is, to estimate things according to their worth. When, therefore, he indulges an humble comparison with his Maker, he feels lost in the infinite fulness and brightness of divine love, as a ray of light is lost in the sun, and a particle of water in the ocean. It inspires him with the most grateful feelings of heart, that he has opportunity to be in the hand of God, as clay in the hand of the potter; and as he considers himself in this humble light, he submits the nature and size of his future vessel entirely to God. As his pride is lost in the dust, he looks up with pleasure toward the throne of God, and rejoices, with all his heart, in the rectitude of the divine administration. He also considers that, if the law be good, death is due to those who have broken it; and “the Judge of all the earth cannot but do right,” Gen. xviii, 25. It would bring everlasting reproach upon his government to spare us, considered merely as in ourselves. When this is felt in our hearts, and not till then, we shall be prepared to look to the free grace of God, through Christ’s redemption.

That the infinitely wise and holy God has exerted his omnipotent power, in such a manner as he purposed should be followed with the existence and entrance of moral evil in the system: for it must be admitted, on all hands, that God has a perfect knowledge, foresight, and view of all possible existences and events. If that system and scene of operation, in which moral evil should never have existence, was actually preferred in the divine mind, certainly the Deity is infinitely disappointed in the issue of his own operations. Dr. Hopkins maintains, therefore, that “God was the author, origin, and positive cause of Adam’s sin:” yea, “that he is the origin and cause of moral evil, as really as he is of the existence of any thing that he wills.”

That the introduction of sin is, upon the whole, for the general good. For the wisdom and power of the Deity are displayed in carrying on designs of the greatest good: and the existence of moral evil has, undoubtedly, occasioned a more full, perfect, and glorious discovery of the infinite perfections of the divine nature, than could otherwise have been made to the view of creatures.

That repentance is before faith in Christ. By this, is not intended, that repentance is before a speculative conviction of the being and perfections of God, and of the person and character of Christ; but only, that true repentance is previous to a saving faith in Christ, by which the believer is united to Christ, and entitled to the benefits of his mediation and atonement. So Christ commanded, “Repent ye, and believe the Gospel;” and Paul preached “repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.”

That though men became sinners by Adam, according to a divine constitution, yet they were and are accountable for no sins but personal: for, (1.) Adam’s act, in eating the forbidden fruit, was not the act of his posterity; therefore they did not sin at the same time that he did. (2.) The sinfulness of that act could not be transferred to them afterward; because the sinfulness of an act can no more be transferred from one person to another, than an act itself. (3.) Therefore Adam’s act, in eating the forbidden fruit, was not the cause, but only the occasions of his posterity being sinners. Adam sinned, and now God brings his posterity into the world sinners.

That though believers are justified through Christ’s righteousness, yet his righteousness is not transferred to them. For personal righteousness cannot be transferred from one person to another, nor personal sin; otherwise the sinner would become innocent, and Christ the sinner. The Scripture, therefore, represents believers as receiving only the benefits of Christ’s righteousness in justification, or their being pardoned and accepted for Christ’s righteousness’ sake; and this is the proper Scripture notion of imputation. Jonathan’s righteousness was imputed to Mephibosheth, when David showed kindness to him for his father Jonathan’s sake, 2 Samuel ix, 7.

The Hopkinsians warmly advocate the doctrine of the divine decrees, not only particular election, but also reprobation; they hold also the total depravation of human nature, the special influences of the Spirit of God in regeneration, justification by faith alone, the final perseverance of the saints, and the consistency between entire freedom and absolute dependence; and therefore claim it as their just due, since the world will make distinctions, to be called Hopkinsian Calvinists. Calvinists, however, have demurred against several of these propositions, and a long and warm controversy was occasioned by them in the United States; to a few points of which we shall advert.--(1.) Selfishness, as confining our affections and exertions to ourselves, is confessedly a vice; but that self is not to be excluded from our affections, is evident even from the terms of the divine law,--“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” And the Scriptures teach us, that “no man hateth his own flesh.” Such a “disinterested benevolence,” therefore, as implies no peculiar anxiety for our personal salvation and happiness, can never be required of us. A good man may and must be convinced, that God would be just in his final condemnation, considered out of Christ; but it is impossible to acquiesce in such a prospect; it is making holiness to consist in being satisfied with remaining for ever unholy, which is as impious as it is contradictory; and the strong and strange things which some Hopkinsonians have said on this subject, can only be accounted for from the love of paradox. (2.) The other principal point on which Calvinists dissent, is the making God “the author and efficient cause of sin.” It is true that the Doctor says elsewhere, that “in causing or originating sin, there is no sin;” this, however, is a position so dangerous, so unsupported, and so contrary to the common sense of mankind, that we may well shrink from it; and should risk no speculation that can implicate the divine character, or furnish an excuse for sin. “Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance?” saith the Apostle. “God forbid! for how then shall God judge the world?” Rom. iii, 5, 6. Those who feel interested in the controversy, may be fully gratified in the “Contrast between Calvinism and Hopkinsianism,” by Ezra Styles Ely, A. M., (New-York, 1811,) and other American publications. In this country the controversy is but little known; but we may remark that the theory of Hopkins appears to be an attempt to unite some points of mystic theology with the Calvinism commonly received, and that where it differs from the latter system, it relieves no difficulty.