For nearly four centuries, the state system ushered by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648AD gave way to a new era of socio-economic and political dispensation determined by the diplomatic relations among the states. 1 Under the terms of the treaty, the three-decade-long war of the 17 th Century Europe was summarized, leading to the recognition of the territorial sovereignty of the states that made up the Holy Roman Empire. The pact saw 300 of the Roman Empires’ princes become entirely sovereign within their spheres of influence. The golden era of the ancient Roman Empire renaissance diplomacy settled with the French inversion of Italy in 1494. 2 This renaissance era was characterized by the struggle for dominion among the sovereign powers of Europe and the Hapsburg Empire. The failure by the Catholic Church to influence its own reform agenda manured the field for the regrouping of the protestant ideology. The first pinch was felt in 1534 against the whims of the papal power when King Henry VIII instituted a separationist movement under the banner of the Anglican Church. This move came about after the Catholic Church strongly opposed his highly publicized divorce with Catherine of Aragon. 3 Following these developments, a widespread movement begun in Germany and was led by Martin Luther had the backing of many aristocrats and rulers of the time – the majority of whom were from Northern Europe. This conflict of interest sparked off a rebellion leading to the Thirty Year’s War. After the treaty of Westphalia, religious leaders took center stage to spearhead a long-lasting peace process that would not let the states to degenerate into another war with such catastrophic magnitude. From the experiences and the memoirs of the English diplomatic representation of the 17 th century, it was conspicuously established that the role that religion is capable of playing in foreign policy is second to no other concept reached upon in history. 4 Much of this conviction was informed by their ability to cushion conflict into a cessation of hostilities, much of which was realized with preferential ease. 5 William Godolphin, Henry Saville, and William Trumbull were categorically instrumental in these processes owing to their potentiality to the task and their positioning between diplomacy and religion. To ascertain their centrality to the contribution of these diplomatic ties, their respective taskforces were extensively distributed for a religious course under diplomacy. The diplomatic consciousness that informed the early church made all these key figures to be dispersed in most of the Catholic nation-states during the 17 th century, while in these states, they positioned themselves in intermediate social ranks acting as a bridge between the church and the state. However, what mattered then was familiarity with the concept of parliamentary politics, and indeed this made these religious leaders go easily in-between the state and the masses. 6 On the other hand, these religious leaders were restricted by virtue of their positions to issue their positioning openly on various issues of politics of the state and the people. At the height of the 17 th century AD, the Christian Commonwealth Empire had disintegrated, leading to vest