The sinners last sentence to eternal punishment, for sins of omission

Now I have largely proved, that Omissions are sins as well as Commissions; and to speak properly and exactly, there is no sin but the sin of […]ion. ⟨p. 174⟩For even in Commissions, their sinfulness consisteth in their want of that goodness which the Law requireth. Were there not a deficiency in them of somewhat which they ought to have, or a want of conformity to the Law, there would be no sin in them. Yea, I have proved sins of Omission in some respect greater sins, as more against the Mind of the Law-giver, (whose Will consists rather in the Affirmative than Negative part of the Command) and as the ground of sins of Commission, and as more directly against the Gospel than sins of Commission. They are much mistaken, who judge Omissions pure Privations, or mere Negations little other than non-entities; for Omissions are transgressions of an Affirmative Command, and violations of a positive Precept, and the greatest Contradictions to the Mind of the Law, and therefore most justly liable to its Curse. The Apostle tells us what Obedience the Law requireth, and what the Condition of such as fail therein is, Gal. 3.10. 1. It requireth practical Obedience, not hearing, or knowing, or speaking only ⟨p. 175⟩of what is written in the Book of the Law, but doing it; To do them. It's doing that the Law requireth, Do this and live, &c. And it's doers that the Law justifieth, Rom. 2.13. Not the hearers of the Law, but the doers thereof shall be justified. Now under this doing, sins of Omission are expressly forbidden, and those Duties (the neglect of which are sins of Omission) are commanded.

Now I have largely proved, that Omissions are sins as well as Commissions; and to speak properly and exactly, there is no sin but the sin of 〈…〉ion. ⟨p. 174⟩For even in Commissions, their sinfulness consisteth in their want of that goodness which the Law requireth. Were there not a deficiency in them of somewhat which they ought to have, or a want of conformity to the Law, there would be no sin in them. Yea, I have proved sins of Omission in some respect greater sins, as more against the Mind of the Law-giver, (whose Will consists rather in the Affirmative than Negative part of the Command) and as the ground of sins of Commission, and as more directly against the Gospel than sins of Commission. They are much mistaken, who judge Omissions pure Privations, or meer Negations little other than non-entities; for Omissions are transgressions of an Affirmative Command, and violations of a positive Precept, and the greatest Contradictions to the Mind of the Law, and therefore most justly liable to its Curse. The Apostle tells us what Obedience the Law requireth, and what the Condition of such as fail therein is,