No, I have never seen that book, but if there is one thing of which I am certain, I am certain that where there existed support for a legal proposition in the form of a case or statute, the authors of that text would have utilized them. Along with that page from the text, you included the Act (statute) which requested that the court prepare the text. That Act reads in pertinent part as follows:
"That the Judges of the Supreme Court are hereby required to examine and report to the next Legislature, which of the English Statutes are in force in this Commonwealth, and which of those Statutes in their opinion ought to be incorporated into the Statute Laws of the Commonwealth."
In other words, the Legislature was requesting the Supreme Court to report to the Legislature about which English statutes were already duplicated by the statutes of Pennsylvania and which other English statutes the Supreme Court believed should be enacted by the state legislature. So, of course, the legislature wanted the Supreme Court to make reference to statutes existing in both England and Pennsylvania. I have not seen the entire text, but I am as certain as I can be that s Court wishing to describe the then existing laws of Pennsylvania would have made reference to any and all relevant statutes and case law. In fact, the very next paragraph cites a then existing federal statute. If you have a copy of that book, look around and I am certain that you will find many statutes and cases cited therein. Any competent effort to describe the current laws in any state will of necessity include references to relevant statutes and case law.
As to the definition of natural born citizen, it is not our fault that the authors of our Constitution did not provide a more detailed definition of the phrase. I suspect that every person at that Convention believed the matter to be of very little import compared to questions like the powers to be delegated to the three branches of the federal government, the relationship between the states and the federal government, how to protect little states from big states, etc. I doubt that you would have found anyone sitting in a corner worrying that Electors might have a difficult time interpreting this little phrase. Had they thought it more important, they would have said more than they did. No one should drive himself crazy over this relatively small matter. Use the definition that makes you most comfortable and all will be well.
Pennsylvania enacted a reception statute January 28, 1777, to maintain continuity of order.
The United States has no such reception statute nor is there any provision in either frame of government (Articles of Confederation, Constitution of the United States) established under the Declaration of Independence.
There is no birth on the soil (jus soli) English Statute. There is only an English Father (jus sanguinus) Statute.
The English "common law" is the unwritten law. There is no English law statute asserting that birth on the soil makes you a citizen because it is part of the common law.
Now I will let that sink in for you a bit before I elaborate further.