The Trial and Execution of Sarah Good: A Case Study in Selective Theocracy
Beginning on March 1, 1692, Sarah Good, of Salem, Massachusetts, was examined on charges of witchcraft. Witnesses would later testify that she had engaged in witchcraft, ridden on brooms and poles, appeared as an apparition and tormented children, and otherwise bewitched various people in the community. Good denied all charges, including having familiarity with evil spirits and making a contract with the devil. The final recorded comments of her examination included the following exchange:
John Harthorn: who doe you serve?
Sarah Good: I serve god.
Harthorn: what god doe you serve?
Good: the god that made heaven and earth
In short, she denied all charges and claimed to be just like her examiners in serving God. She was executed by hanging on July 19, 1692.
The record of Sarah Good’s trial reads like modern day horror-genre fiction, and a contemporary reader of the transcript might perhaps be wholly unconvinced of Good’s guilt. Whether or not she was involved in witchcraft, there is no actual evidence presented against her, but in her day the fervor against witchcraft was so strong that the ridiculous testimonies against her were sufficient for her to be condemned to death. Roughly twenty others in the Salem area were executed on charges of witchcraft—including some who opposed the witch-hunts, such as John Proctor and Salem’s former minister, George Burroughs. Later, authorities conceded that the witch-hunts had been a terrible mistake, but the damage had been done, and it was irreparable.
In addition to wild superstition, there was a theological basis for the prevailing attitudes toward witchcraft. For example, Deuteronomy 18:10-12 reads,
There shall not be found among you anyone who…uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up of the dead. For whoever does these things is detestable to the Lord
The you in the passage is Israel, and the passage is in the context of reiterating Israel’s commission to drive out the nations from the land of Canaan (because of their wickedness, Deut. 9:4).
Clearly, God was opposed to witchcraft then, and still is (e.g., Gal. 5:20). Yet He never broadened Israel’s commission (to purge that land of wicked nations) to include any other nation, and certainly He gave no such instruction or authority to the church. Historically, some have claimed this kind of authority through the device of replacement theology—the idea that the church replaces Israel (or at least is the continuation of true Israel) in God’s plan. Replacement theology rejects the idea that ethnic Israel (as qualified in Rom. 9:6ff) is uniquely and perpetually chosen by God.
Israel, upon accepting the Mosaic Covenant (beginning in Ex. 19), came under theocracy. They were directly governed by God and His Law, as given through Moses and enforced later by Joshua and the judges. After the time of the judges, Israel desired a king, so they could be like the other nations. God granted their wish, but considered their desire a rejection of Him (1 Sam. 8:7), and since that time there has been no divinely ordained theocracy on this planet. Much of the prophecy in the Hebrew Bible deals with the restoration of Israel’s theocracy, but in the next iteration it will be under the physical and present rule of the Messiah in Jerusalem. In the meantime, though, the church is not Israel, and the Mosaic Covenant (Law) has been fulfilled—having fulfilled its purpose and being no longer in effect (see Eph. 2:15, Gal. 3:19-24, and Rom. 6:14).
In late-seventeenth century Salem, the authorities were operating in large part under a human-ordained selective theocracy. God didn’t command it, and He gave no instruction regarding such a thing. It was selective in that there was no consistency with respect to which “laws” of God would be applied and enforced. While the folks at Salem could be commended for their apparent (I’m trying to be charitable here) desire to legislate and enforce legislation based on what they understood to be God’s preference, they erred greatly in failing to rightly ascertain how God handles sin outside of the context of the Mosaic Law, and they failed to understand the Biblical distinction in ethical standards and enablement for believers and unbelievers in the present age.
Today, we face some of these same challenges. Christians are the body of Christ, and have the Spirit within them—that Spirit Who will bear fruit in the lives of believers if they will let Him (e.g., Gal. 5). Believers are to hold each other accountable to the lofty Biblical standards of spiritual maturity, and are to exhibit love and grace—two qualities that are integral to those Biblical standards. On the other hand, believers are not called to hold unbelievers accountable to those standards (1 Cor. 5:9). That judgment is the Lord’s, and His alone. Perhaps reading the death warrant of Sarah Good will help us to consider the evil we create when we step into God’s role without His permission.
So how should we, as Christians in a largely non-Christian society, approach our God-given social-political roles? We are no longer of this world (Col. 1:13), but we are in it. We are citizens in societies that also allow us differing levels of influence in how those societies will operate. Shall we ignore those opportunities entirely, citing our heavenly focus? Or shall we, acknowledging our heavenly focus, do what we can, not to place on unbelievers the expectation of spiritual maturity, but also to be equitable and just in how we interact with them. We must be cautious not to rush headlong into the error of Salem; we must not be frenzied in the pursuit of a selective theocracy and forget who we are and why we are here. Theocracy isn’t ours in this present age. Let’s leave off claiming what God hasn’t given us, and instead focus on our own obedience.
Christopher Cone Bio
Christopher Cone (ThD, PhD) is the President of Tyndale Theological Seminary and Biblical Institute, pastor of Tyndale Bible Church and author and editor of several books.
- 254 views
I run across terms like “replacement theology” from time to time. However, after years of reading commentaries and theologies, some written by those who are assumed to believe in “replacement theology,” I cannot recall a single instance of such men using this term to identify what they believe. Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seems to be used only by those who disagree with any connection between the Old Testament and New Testament people of God. It also misrepresents what those labeled with “replacement theology” actually believe.
Its good to discuss the different ways Christians read and understand the Bible. I find such discussions helpful in my study of God’s Word. It is not very helpful to apply labels which are misleading, labels which those who are so labeled inform you are misleading. Far from fostering better understanding, such practices serve to obscure what others teach.
Am I wrong? It seems to me that only opponents of covenant theology, in any form, use the term “replacement theology.” If you have to use a misleading term to make your case, doesn’t that indicate your case may not be as strong as you think?
G. N. Barkman
Well put post by Cone. I just finished reading Chapter 3 of Perry Miller’s Errand into the Wilderness, written in the 1950s. Miller was a Harvard historian, and in detail he traces the development of Reformed Theology from Calvin’s death through Coccieus, Witsius, and the Puritans. That chapter is about 50 pages of small print. Miller makes more points than can be reviewed here, but two are salient. 1) The Puritans who fled persecution in England and Holland granted no liberty when they came to New England. 2) He also makes the point that there is a difference between Calvinism and the “federal” or “covenant” system of theology. He affirms that this led Jonathan Edwards to abandon that system while retaining his Calvinism. That chapter in Miller is well worth the reading.
The point about persecution explains why Roger Williams was expelled and Obadiah Holmes was whipped in Massachussets.
Cone’s interpretation of the situation is ahistorical, even irrelevant. Theocracy is not the issue here. This is not a case of bumbling Puritans mishandling the Old Testament or misunderstanding dispensational shifts. This is about witchcraft.
First, most ancient cultures believed in witchcraft and even had official laws detailing the punishment for it. Roman and Frankish laws both prohibited it and (I believe) called for the death of the practitioner. From here it passed into European common law.
Second, public sensitivity to perceived witchcraft varied throughout the Middle Ages, but during the Renaissance it picked up. One reason for the growing hostility to folk magic was a new belief that witchcraft was powered by a pact with the devil. This pact could give the user immense powers to harm. (Public imagination about the Devil and demons was running pretty high around this time.) Thus, a witch was seen as a person with real, harmful powers in active collusion with the Devil against good citizens, often preying on children. This is reflected in the trial records.
Third, Sarah Good was a marginal person, a somewhat odd, unkempt beggar. She would have appeared as an undesirable, and quite likely people would have found something “off” about her. Children probably really were uneasy around her. If the trial records can be believed, even her husband suspected her of some kind of malfeasance So, she did conform in some ways to the popular representation of a witch.
Fourth, penal codes were much stricter than now. People could be whipped for minor theft and executed for major. Without an unwieldy prison system, presumed dangers to society had to be dealt with decisively, either by banishment or execution. Also, imprisoning a witch might not be effective. Perhaps she could still cast curses and cause trouble.
Taking account of the social situation, Sarah Good’s fate is tragic and unjust, but not altogether surprising. And it has little to do with theories regarding Mosaic law.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
It is revealing, that for atheists, secularists, and theological liberals, the Salem Witch Trials is the main topic of discussion, whenever Christian opposition to witchcraft is discussed. In Europe, tens of thousands of people were executed for the crime of witchcraft, between the mid 1400s and 1700. The incident in Salem is discussed in book after book. By comparison, those done in Europe are rarely written about. The witch executions in Europe were carried out in both Roman Catholic and Protestant countries. Typically gruesome torture preceded execution by burning. In most cases, the use of the Pentateuch was a primary source for examiners and lawyers, as well as (in Catholic countries) the writings of Thomas Aquinas. The primary sourcebook for trials was Malleus Maleficarum (Witches Hammer), written by two Catholic inquisitors. It quoted liberally from the Old Testament. But John Calvin, as well as other reformers also believed in and practiced the burning of witches. Inevitably the concept of the union of church and state formed a basis for the execution of witches. To this day, many of those cities where such executions took place want to maintain silence about the shameful events.
Though frenzy played a role in the Salem Witch Trials, so did the sermons of Cotton Mather (IMO, a good man, who got this subject wrong). Sarah Good may have been a marginal person, but Rev. George Burroughs was not. After his hanging, preceded by Burroughs very moving prayer, Cotton Mather announced that the devil had transformed himself into an angel of light. Without the theology and preaching of Cotton Mather, the trials probably would not have happened.
I think Christopher Cone is correct. Using Pentateuch statements about criminal codes, that were addressed specifically to Israel, as commands for the church today often will get us into trouble.
Let us say:
1) You live in a society that wholeheartedly believes in witchcraft.
2) What you understand by witchcraft is a collusion with dark forces to harm others.
3) You have a person that seems (whether objectively or through a bout of hysterical sensitivity) to be a witch and who is believed to have harmed others and will continue to do so.
4) You are a Dispensationalist.
How does this scene play out differently in any fundamental way?
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
I’ve never heard that before. Can you offer documentation? It is well known that he participated in the execution of Servatus (spelling?), a heretic who was also condemned by Rome, and would have been executed by the Catholics if they had caught him, but I’ve been under the impression that this was the only execution in which Calvin participated.
G. N. Barkman
G.N., one place to start on this subject is Schaff’s History of the Christian Church. In Vol. VI Philip Schaff’s son David presents an excellent, readable, and scholarly presentation of witchcraft in Europe. Being aware of some of the works from the 19th century myself, it is clear to me that he was on top of the latest scholarship on the subject. He mentions that Calvin let stand a law in Geneva, for the capital punishment of witches. On p. 529 he mentions that 34 women were burnt or quartered for witchcraft in Geneva in 1545 (Calvin’s time). That is a good beginning for you. Actually, you can google “Calvin + witchcraft” or something similar, and come up with a fair amount of documentation (as well as a host of nonsense, but I think you will easily discern the former from the latter).
The reason that you do not easily find this subject in a biography on John Calvin is because there is too much other important history to talk about. In a book on Reformation history, witchcraft and its persecution is deserving of a minor chapter. It existed long before the Reformation and ended long after. In the history of Europe during that time, it is worthy of a lot more discussion.
There are two wrong ways of responding to the unhappy facts about the heroes (and I do mean heroes) of Church History. The first is to paint over any moles on their faces, as it were. The second is to demonize them (much like the people who call the U.S. president “the antichrist,” depending on who the president is). Both are serious errors. If a good man has done bad, then no matter how well motivated he was, we ought to learn from that part of his life. The Bible certainly practices this principle. Why did he do it? How did he fall into the trap? Was there in fact something wrong with his theology? Did he let his relationship with the Lord slide? To whom should we be thankful for extricating us from the practice of this evil? What is the biblical balance, in view of this problem?
Genuine Christians have frequently in history played the role of hypocrite, because they refused to look the practice of evil by their predecessors in the face. At various times unbelievers have taken the higher moral ground, and genuine Christians have been pressured to catch up.
Charlie, I enjoyed it! And you have posed a fair question.
Various dispensationalists have done a lot of stupid stuff at times. Increase Mather, who was in ministry at the time of the Salem trials (and practiced praying out demons together with his son, Cotton) was not a dispensationalist, as far as I know. He definitely was a pre-millennialist, and believed strongly that the nation of Israel would inherit the OT promises. But it is also true that both father and son believed in a society run by the implementation of theocratic ideas. In my limited reading on the subject, I have found that Increase Mather generally stayed out of trouble with his ideas. But Cotton Mather was different. His biographer, Barrett Wendell, says that he was downright meddlesome with his notions.
Politically way-off dispensationalists? The German dispensationalist, Erik Sauer praised Hitler openly in 1940. By that time WWII had already begun, purges were long in play, one political party ruled, the Kristallnacht had taken place, and hundreds of thousands of Jews, as well as some resisting Lutheran and Catholic pastors were already deported to concentration camps. Sauer had written repeatedly that God would fulfill for national Israel His promises in the OT. It is a paradox, to be sure. And we need to remember: praising Hitler, a genuine sin, not to be downplayed, was a far cry from being Hitler, or one of his lackeys.
But the fact is also that witches were executed by those governments which held to a union of church and state. The union of church and state in Christian cultures had its origin in the theocratic ideas of various church fathers, including Augustine and Eusebius. It is hard to find a dispensationalist who says, or has said that the church age is the time for theocracy.
Just an added note: I doubt seriously whether the removal of sorcerers and witches in Israel in any way resembled the Witch court proceedings of Salem or Europe.
There are some things we can only speculate about it this point. If the witch trials folks hadn’t had a selectively theocratic mindset would they have simply concocted another rationale? Maybe.
If there hadn’t been a culture-wide wave of witch-worry, would the whole thing not have happened? Maybe.
But as it is, these events did happen and a selectively-theocratic rationale with much church power-civil power confusion was a prominent factor.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
This is placing human reason above divine revelation. Were innocent people burned as witches? Of course. But certainly you must realize that innocent people were put to death and the guilty went free under Israel’s theocracy. The purpose of the theocracy was government, not perfect justice for only God delivers perfect justice for only God is perfect. It is so common in these days to use the lack of perfect justice as an excuse to abide lawlessness, and if you deny that look at our own society,at the warzone on our urban streets, in our suburban schools and movie theaters and against the unborn in the womb.
Second, God’s revelation exceeds all. Now I adhere neither to dispensationalism or covenant theology (NCT leader actually) but I recognize the need for those outside the context of the Israel theocracy to govern themselves. We cannot forget that governments that fall outside the scope of the theocracy given to God’s covenant nation are still created, commanded, guided by, servants of and ultimately ruled by God. That is why even in the NT, sedition and other crimes against the civil state were counted as grievous sins. The law was to be obeyed whenever doing so did not force one to sin against Jesus Christ. Never forget that Jesus Christ was falsely accused of violating the Roman civil law in addition to the Jewish blasphemy laws, and that scripture held Christ blameless against both because He would have been a sinner against God alone had He violated either.
So since man must necessarily govern himself, what shall be used as the basis for his laws? I say that nothing can exceed divine revelation for this purpose. Now of course, as Christians, divine revelation does not stop at the OT, and moreover NCT adherents such as myself believe that the OT should be interpreted in light of the NCT. But the OT is still divine revelation, so anything that the NT does not specifically set aside or at least reinterpret in light of Jesus Christ cannot possibly do any harm to the person that practices it. Doing such things are not sacraments to confer grace and are not even good works for good works are of the Holy Spirit, but it remains as a guide, and evidence for Godly wisdom. If that were not the case, then dispensationalists, covenant theologians and NCT advocates would not all universally agree on general teaching and adherence to the Ten Commandments for moral instruction, the psalms for praise and worship, the proverbs for wisdom, some OT practices such as tithing, etc.
So why cannot the same principles be used to govern ourselves? Why on earth would we take the notion that the blasphemous, idolatrous, proud rantings of wicked men who rebelled against God and became deists, enlightenment philosophers, freemasons, etc. and hence decided that man was best governed by the reason produced by his darkened mind and wicked heart? That the old pagan ideas of democracy (originated by the Greeks) and republics that they resurrected in knowing, willful and explicit rebellion against God are superior for ruling men than God’s law? Where is your evidence of this? Our wealth and power? Well, Rome, Greece, Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, Tyre etc. were wealthy and powerful and they all fell just as we will in the eschaton if not before.
If you have the idea that burning witches is wrong because we burned innocent people, then you must cast aside your opposition to capital punishment for murder, treason and all other crimes as well. But if you base your opposition to burning witches on the humanistic notion of freedom of religion, are you not aware that nowhere in either the Old Testament or the New Testament are such freedoms granted or blessed? The Bible only praised kings like Darius because God used them to grant the Jews the liberty to worship God. It did not praise those kings because He gave them license and freedom to chase after vile abominations that worship the creator in place of the Creator who is blessed forever. God gave man government in order to restrain and control the evil actions of nations, but the Bible in both testaments makes it clear that the practice of idolatry acts against and undermines even the restraining influence of government. Again, our own nation in our own time is evidence of this.
A lot of us support religious freedom because we presume that it gives us the ability to practice our religion. The truth is that the ability for God’s people to worship God comes solely from God, and it is impossible for human government to stop God’s people from worshiping Him. So the idea that we have to spare the witch in order for the right for the Baptist to have his 501C-3 exempt megachurch on the good side of town is nothing but the very sort of things that Colossians 2:8 and 2 Corinthians 10:5 explicitly warns us against. It has gotten us to the point where not a few pastors proudly stand up and say that they support Christians joining the military and killing and dying to preserve Judaism, Mormonism, Islam, Catholicism and other abominations that is leading its adherents to destruction and defiling our nation and its culture. And it is amazing. Show me one OT saint who died to protect those who worshiped Baal or Ashtoreth (which were the civilized, organized religions of the day practiced by the powerful elites and therefore more akin Catholicism, freemasonry or Islam than witchcraft, which was why syncretism was such a seductive threat to the OT saints) or one NT saint who died to secure the thorough wickedness of burning incense to Caesar and his republic (remember though Caesar was a monarch he did have a senate which constrained his power just as our own congress is supposed to do the same to our presidents).
As a believer in sola scriptura, I will never say that executing witches is wrong until someone can show me that it says so in the Bible. Otherwise, that person is elevating human opinion above God’s divine, unchanging, perfect and eternal law. And please, out of context quotes in the sermon of the mount will not suffice, because if they must be used to justify suffering witches today, then they would have been used to accept the presence of witches in Christ’s time when the OT law was still in effect. How would you like to be the theologian to stand up and make that case?
Now the current civil statutes make it illegal to kill witches, but we are to obey and respect it because it is the law. But keep in mind: the same set of laws that protects witches also protects abortion doctors. (Please, do not pretend as if witches did not practice child sacrifice. They did, and they still do in some parts of the world.) The same set of laws that protects witches has now legalized homosexuality in many states and will soon do so on the federal level. (Again, do not deny the link between witchcraft and homosexuality; indeed the modern neo-pagan goddess feminist movement celebrates it in men, women and minor children.) Do not delude yourself into thinking that these to be coincidences. Instead, those are evidences, apologetics if you will, that the word of God is eternal and true indeed.
Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com
informs my take on the label Reformed\Calvinist. It is a reason why I reject the label and have problems with Baptists who take it on. This is not to say I reject some of the underlying theological positions. I simply want to distance myself from the Puritans.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
Job 34:12 Surely God will never do wickedly, Nor will the Almighty pervert justice.
No, it was not God’s idea that 22 out of 22 innocent people in Salem should be falsely accused and executed for witchcraft, any more than it was God’s idea that the Kings of Israel sacrifice their children to Molech.
In Exodus 23:1-2, the Law of Moses specifically calls the actions that took place in Salem, as well as the many witch trials in Europe perverse. “You shall not circulate a false report. Do not put your hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. You shall not follow a crowd to do evil; nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after many to pervert justice.” If the political and spiritual leaders of Salem had put God’s Word above human ideas, they never would have started their evil nonsense. But their sin was really small in comparison to the ideas and actions of religious and political leaders in Europe. There, essentially only a miniscule number would ever have been convicted of witchcraft, if it had not been that the accused underwent gruesome tortures to make them confess to crimes (often moral perversions thought up by the inquisitors themselves). These sorts of things should not be blamed on God, but on the father of lies. Likewise, Jesus said that many will kill genuine Christians, thinking they are doing God a favor. That is precisely what happened many times in witch-burnings.
I repeat: I really don’t think that the witch trials of Europe were anything close to how Israel carried out the Mosaic Law in this matter.
It is one thing to point out the unbelief of Thomas Jefferson and decry the sins of the United States. It is quite another to bless the genuinely diabolical activities of political and religious tyrants.
[G. N. Barkman]I run across terms like “replacement theology” from time to time. However, after years of reading commentaries and theologies, some written by those who are assumed to believe in “replacement theology,” I cannot recall a single instance of such men using this term to identify what they believe. Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seems to be used only by those who disagree with any connection between the Old Testament and New Testament people of God. It also misrepresents what those labeled with “replacement theology” actually believe.
Its good to discuss the different ways Christians read and understand the Bible. I find such discussions helpful in my study of God’s Word. It is not very helpful to apply labels which are misleading, labels which those who are so labeled inform you are misleading. Far from fostering better understanding, such practices serve to obscure what others teach.
Am I wrong? It seems to me that only opponents of covenant theology, in any form, use the term “replacement theology.” If you have to use a misleading term to make your case, doesn’t that indicate your case may not be as strong as you think?
Try these statements:
“The community of believers has in all respects replaced carnal, national Israel. The Old Testament is fulfilled in the New.” – H. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 4, 667.
“The church then, as the people of the New Covenant has taken the place of Israel, and national Israel is nothing more than an empty shell from which the pearl has been removed…” - H. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, 354-355.
Greg Nichols speaks of “God’s old covenant with Hebrew Israel …and new covenant with Christian Israel” - Covenant Theology, (110).
G.K. Beale, on page 211 of his A New Testament Biblical Theology, says the redeemed nations are called “authentic Israel,” and new covenant believers (the church) are “true Jerusalemites.” (671). In his comments on the supercessionist test-text Matt. 21:41 he speaks of God “rejecting ethnic national Israel as God’s true people” (680), and of Israel’s stewardship being taken from them and given to the gentiles (681). That sounds like a replacement any way you cut it! Beale shows his colors again when he declares “Jesus then interprets this to mean that ‘the kingdom of God will be taken away from you [Israel] and given to a people, producing the fruit of it.’” (673 my emphasis). Then he interprets the stone cut out without hands which smashes the image in Dan. 2 as smashing “the ungodly nations, which also includes Israel.” (682). He also cites approvingly Charles Provan’s book, The Church is Israel Now: The Transfer of Conditional Privilege (669 n.50).
More examples can be given if needed. Many today downplay replacement language and speak in terms of “transformation” etc., but the arguments are the same and the reality is that the promises to national Israel are transferred to the Church and often spiritualized via questionable typology. Individual Jews may be saved by becoming part of the “true Israel” the Church. But the covenant promises to the literal Jewish ancestors of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob of land, king, being the head of the nations, etc. will not come through.
Look, if you believe that sort of thing, okay. But please face up to what it is you are saying about national Israel.
How do you interpret Matt. 21:41?
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Marsilius, I read the section in vol. VI of Schaff that you offered to support John Calvin’s involvement with burning witches. The reference is to 24 witches burned and quartered in Geneva in 1545, and constitutes exactly one sentence. There is nothing to link this to Calvin except the date. Having read several biographies of Calvin over the years, I know that he did not control the government of Geneva. I fail to see anything in this citation that connects these executions to Calvin.
Unless there is stronger evidence than this, I must conclude that Calvin did not participate in these executions. Knowing how many people enjoy castigating Calvin, I cannot imagine how his endorsement of witch burning would have passed unnoticed until now, if true.
Some like him, some dislike him, but let’s not misrepresent John Calvin.
G. N. Barkman
Discussion