On John 5: 40 Dr. Gill wrote in his commentary:
“Though man lies under such a disability and has neither power nor will of himself to come to Christ for life; yet his not coming to Christ, when revealed in the external ministry of the Gospel, as God’s way of salvation, is criminal and blameworthy; since the disability and perverseness of his will are not owing to any decree of God, but to the corruption and vitiosity of his nature through sin. And therefore, since this vitiosity of nature is blameworthy, that which follows upon it, and is the effect of it must be so too .”
"his not coming to Christ...is criminal and blameworthy." How much more evidence does one need to show that Dr. Gill, that great old Baptist, believed that rejection of the Gospel was sin or a thing to be condemned? But, if this is granted, then acceptance of the Gospel becomes a duty.
Further, Dr. Gill says that "a coming to him by faith is here meant" and so teaches contrary to Hardshellism.