"This passage—which, in [his] seventh book, Julian Augustus has vomited forth against us, that is, [us] Christians—he calumniates, and says: ‘What is written of Israel, the Evangelist Matthew has transferred to Christ, in order that he might make a laughing stock of the simplicity of those who, from among the gentiles [(de gentibus)], had believed.’ To him we shall respond briefly [as follows]: First, that the Gospel [of] Matthew was brought forth in Hebrew [(Hebræis litteris)], for which reason [(quod) none] were able to read [it] except those who were from among the Hebrews [(ex Hebraeis)]. Therefore he [(i.e. Matthew?)] has not done [this] in order that [(propterea . . . ut)] he might make a laughing stock of gentile [converts (ethnicis)]. But if he [(i.e. Julian?)] did not wish to make a laughing stock of the Hebrews, he was either foolish or ignorant: foolish, if he has concocted a patent falsehood; ignorant, if he has not understood about whom these things were being said. That book absolves of [(excusat)] folly which is composed circumspectly and in order; we are not able to call [him (i.e. Matthew?)] ignorant whom from other testimonies of the Scriptures we know to have possessed a knowledge of the Law. It remains that we say this, that [(illud . . . , quod)] those things that precede in others τυπικῶς [(typologically)] are according to truth and fulfillment referred to Christ: which [referral] we know [(cognovimus, have learned)] the Apostle effected in the two mountains Sinai and Zion, and in Sarah and Hagar. For not only is [Mount Sinai] not Mount Sinai, but [Zion] is also not Zion: [Sarah] was [(PAi3S)] not Sarah, and [Hagar] was [(PAi3S)] not Hagar; because these the Apostle Paul has referred to the two Covenants [(Gal 4:22-26)]. So therefore this [is] what is written: ‘A child [was] Israel, and I have loved him, and out of Egypt I have called my son’ is assuredly said of the people of Israel, which is called out of Egypt, which is loved, which, after the wandering of idolatry, was, at that time, as if an infant and a child, called [(PAi3S)]: but is referred in full [(perfecte)] to Christ. Thus [(Nam)] Isaac was in type of Christ because the latter was himself [(ipse)] to have carried [(portaverit, FpAi3S, will have carried; or PAS3S)] for himself [(sibi)] the wood of future death [(Gen 22:6)], and also Jacob, because [the latter, namely Christ] was to have had [(habuerit, FpAi3S, will have had; or PAS3S) both] Leah afflicted in [(dolentem, grieving)] the eyes, and Rachel the beautiful wife [(Gen 29:17, 23-28)]. In Leah, who was older, we understand the blindness of the Synagogue: in Rachel, the beauty of the Church; and yet[, with respect to those] who are [(PAi3S)] in part types of [our] Lord [and] Savior, not all things that are said to have happened [to them] must be believed to have happened in type of him [(et tamen qui ex parte typi fuerunt Domini Salvatoris, non Omnia quæ fecisse narrantur, in typo ejus fecisse credenda sunt)]. For the type indicates a part: because if the whole precedes in the type, then [it] is not in a type, but must be considered a truth of history."
Jerome, In Osee III.xi.1-2 (CCSL 76, 121 l. 57-122 l. 90), translation mine. Marc Adriaen, in CCSL 76, glosses the reference to Julian's "seventh book" rather straightforwardly as follows: Julian the Apostate, Contra Galilaeos VII. Karl Johannes Neumann, in his reconstruction of the Contra Christianos on the basis of the many fragments quoted by (mostly) Cyril of Alexandria (Ivliani Imperatoris librorvm contra Christianos qvae svpersvnt, Scriptorum Graecorum qui Christianam impugnaverunt religionem quae supersunt 3 (Leipzig: Teubner, 1880)), treats the question of the position of this fragment in the original on pp. 100, 237, and 240. Hos 11:1 in the Septuagint: ἐξ Αἰγύπτου μετεκάλεσα τὰ τέκνα αὐτοῦ; Hos 11:1 at Mt 2:15:
"Hunc locum in septimo uolumine Iulianus Augustus quod aduersum nos, id est Christianos, euomuit, calumniatur, et dicit quod de Israel scriptum est, Matthaeus euangelista ad Christum transtulit, ut simplicitati eorum, qui de gentibus crediderant, illuderet. Cui nos breuiter respondebimus: Primum Matthaeum euangelium Hebraeis litteris edidisse, quod non poterant legere nisi hi qui ex Hebraeis errant. Ergo non propterea fecit, ut illuderet ethnicis. Sin autem Hebraeis illudere uoluit, aut stultus, aut imperitus fuit; stultus, si apertum finxit mendacium; imperitus, si non intellexit de quo haec dicerentur. Stultitiam ipsum uolumen excusat, quod prudenter ordinatimque compositum est; imperitum non possumus dicere, quem ex aliis testimoniis scripturarum scientiam legis habuisse cognoscimus. Superest ut illud dicamus quod ea quae τυπικῶς praecedunt in aliis, iuxta ueritatem et adimpletionem referantur ad Christum; quod apostolum in duobus montibus Sina et Sion, et in Sara et Agar fecisse cognouimus. Neque enim non est Sina mons et non est Sion; non fuit Sara et non fuit Agar; quia haec apostolus Paulus ad duo rettulit testamenta. Sic igitur hoc quod scriptum est: Paruulus Israel et dilexi eum, et ex Aegypto uocaui filium meum; dicitur quidem de populo Israel, qui uocatur ex Aegypto, qui diligitur, qui eo tempore post errorem idololatriae quasi infans et paruulus est uocatus; sed perfecte refertur ad Christum. Nam et Isaac in typo Christi fuit quod future mortis ligna sibi ipse portauerit; et Iacob quia Liam dolentem oculos, et Rachel pulchram habuerit uxorem. In Lia quae maior erat, caecitatem intellegimus Synagogae, in Rachel pulchritudinem Ecclesiae; et tamen qui ex parte typi fuerunt Domini Saluatoris, non omnia quae fecisse narrantur, in typo eius fecisse credendi sunt. Typus enim partem indicat, quod si totum praecedat in typo, iam non est typus, sed historiae ueritas appellanda est."