One of the most known church fathers to discuss about christology was St Cyril of Alexandria,

which leads us to a question? Is he a monophysite, or a dyophisite? Now there are explicit letters
that put this into questioning, such would be:

> " [for] the Son of God was made man, assuming the ancient production [of His hands] **into
His own __nature__**, as I have shown in the immediately preceding book."
***Iraneus, Against Heresies (Book IV, Chapter 33), Par 4***

> Once united,** __is accounted one with it__**, making His own what is its, and Himself too
introducing** __into it the operation of His own Nature.__**
***St. Cyril of Alexandria, Scholia on the Incarnation of the Only Begotten, Section IX, "On the
coal".***
> Wherefore, we say that the two natures were united, from which there is the one and only Son
and Lord,jesus Christ, as we accept in our thoughts; but after the union, since the distinction into
two is now done away with, we believe that there is one physis of the Son, as one, however, one
who became man and was made flesh.
`St Cyril of Alexandria, letter to Acacius (40)`

These letters might seem to contradict Chalcedon but in reality, they don't.

So before we continue id like to clarify some information before we continue: For Cyril and overall
in Ephesus they used this following terminology: Physis (nature) <=> Hypostasis (Physis was
being used interchangeably as Hypostasis), whilst in Chalcedon they've been using this following
terminology: Physis (nature) <=> Ouisa, Hypostasis <=> Person (St Gregory of Nyssa also used
this terminology).

For Saint Anthanasius i can say that Saint Anthanasius, Saint Cyril and overall the Ephesus used
a terminology where Hypostasis and Physis (nature) are used interchangeably, and Saint
Anthanasius is saying that there isn't 2 Hypostases of the Son but rather one incarnate
Hypostasis of the Word, this letter you showed me (St Anthanasius) can't refer to nature itself
due to the word "incarnate", otherwise this would lead us to monophysitism. As for the other 2
letters that you've sent me i think these following letters might answer your question: Now for the
first 2 letters dont really lead to miaphysitism since miaphysites believe in 1 composite nature
that is the result of 2 natures being united whilst remaining distinct, so this would lead more into
Monophysitism, but these 2 letters are pretty much answered by these following letters:

> But there is a great gap separating our condition even by immeasurable differences from the
glory and preeminence of our Savior. **For we are servants, but he, __by nature, is Lord and
God__** even if he was among us and __**in our nature** according to the dispensation of the
Incarnation.__
`St Cyril of Alexandria, letter to Egyptian monks (1)`

> __**The differences of the natures are not destroyed through the union, but rather the divinity
and humanity formed for us one Lord Jesus Christ and one Son**__ through the
incomprehensible and ineffable combination to a unity.
`St Cyril of Alexandria letter to Nestorious (4)`

> Your Perfection expounds the rationale of the salvific Passion most correctly and very
learnedly when you assert that the Only Begotten Son of God, in so far as he is understood to be,
and actually is, **God, did not himself suffer [bodily things] in his own nature, but suffered rather
in his earthly nature.**
`St Cyril of Alexandria second letter to Succensus (46)`

Now for the 3rd letter, which is St Cyril's letters to Acacius, my question would be, is St Cyril
talking about Hypostasis or nature? If its nature, then not only this leads to monophysitism, but
also to this one funny conclusion: Notice how the letter includes *"we believe that there is one
physis of the Son, as one, however, one who became man and was made flesh"*, and also he said
this in the following letter:
>The solution or response in the previous section suffices as a clarification of these questions
also. **For if in saying "the one physis of the Word" __we had been silent by not mentioning
"incarnate,"__** but, as it were, setting aside the dispensation of his Incarnation
`St Cyril of Alexandria Letter to Succensus (46)`

My question to the miaphysites if its reffering to nature is, how are the 3 Hypostases of God not
incarnate since the letter states that the one physis of son became man and was made flesh?
incarnate since the letter states that the one physis of son became man and was made flesh?
That 1 nature is reffering to the divine nature logically speaking since the human nature already
has a flesh, and then how is it that the 3 Hypostases are not incarnate but only the Son, afterall
the nature was made flesh hasn't it? So the only logical conclusion here is that St Cyril here was
talking about Subsistantial union here

> Confessing that **the Word was united to flesh __substantially__**, we adore one Son and Lord
Jesus Christ. We do not set up a division and distinguish the man and God, nor do we say that
they are conjoined to one another by dignity and autho ity, for this is idle chatter and nothing
more. Nor do we speak of the Word of God separately as Christ, and, likewise, the one born of
woman separately as another Christ, **but we acknowledge only one Christ, the Word of God the
Father, with his own flesh.**
`St Cyril of Alexanderia, third letter to Nestorious (17)`
“Wherefore, **we say that the
two natures were united**(Substantial union in one subsistence), from which there is the one and
only Son and Lord, Jesus Christ, **as we accept in our thoughts (two subsistences); but after the
union, since. the distinction into two (Sons) is now done away with, **we believe that** there is
one nature
(Miahypostasis) of the Son
`St Cyril, Letter to Acacius (40)`

Now St Cyril does make distinctions in the natures (OUSIA, NOT HYPOSTASIS) after the union,
which he says that those 2 natures form for us one Lord Jesus Christ. Now how he does it is he
does it by using body-soul analogy. Our bodies and souls are real distinct from each other, but
together they form us, one composite Hypostasis. And by this analogy he uses to explain the
**Hypostatic union and the distinctions of the natures even after the union**, which he does it in
the following letters:

> Therefore, as far as concerns our understanding and only the contemplation by the eyes of the
soul in what manner the only begotten became man, **we say that there are two natures which
are united, but that Christ the Son and Lord is one,** the Word of God the Father made man and
incarnate. And, if it seems best, let us accept as an example the composition in our own selves
by which we are men. **For we are composed of soul and body and we see two natures, the one
being the nature of the body and the other the nature of the soul**, but there is one from both in
unity, a man. **And because man is composed of two natures**, this does not make two men be
one, **but one and the same man through the composition, as I said, of soul and body**.
`Saint Cyril's letter to Succensus (45)`
> For we, having united these things, confess one Christ, one Son, the self-same one Lord, and
further, one incarnate nature of the Son, just as one can say with respect to an ordinary man.
**For he is out of different natures, I mean, from body and soul**, and our reasoning and our
contemplation know the difference, but having united them, then we get one human nature.
**Therefore, knowing the difference of the natures is not [the same as] separating the one Christ
into two**.
`St Cyril's letter to Eulogius (44)`