The Conclusion considers the consequences of Eusebius’ rewriting of Christian history. He worked to construct a new and thoroughgoing vision of Christian authority in line with a traditional rhetoric of intellectual, temperate authority, rooted in Graeco-Roman and Christian paideia, learned in Christian households and schools and witnessed in life and death. In this, Eusebius was proposing a model by which Christian leaders should be judged. This meant, first of all, that Eusebius’ own position was strengthened, since he fared well against the criteria of legitimate authority he himself had established. Second, by erasing those elements of the Christian past that might make an elite Graeco-Roman Christian audience uncomfortable, the History sought to tear down the barriers to seeing ‘Christian’ and ‘Roman’ as aligned for an audience in which many would have thought of themselves as both. Third, Eusebius was making a statement about Christian authority and about authority in the Empire more generally, namely that Christians were best suited to wield authority not only in the church but also in the state. In closing, the Conclusion considers the final proof of this: Eusebius’s presentation of Constantine as the best of emperors by traditional standards precisely because of his Christianity.