Abstract: The denial of necessary connections between distinct existences is generally taken to be at the heart of Humanism, and any philosophical account that requires necessary connections is rejected on the grounds that it violates Hume’s dictum.  In this paper, I focus on Armstrong’s account of lawhood.  Lewis objects to Armstrong’s account on Humean grounds – the account requires necessary connections of the sort the Humean renounces. But the Humean rejection of Armstrong’s account is not so straightforward.  I discuss several different ways one can understand the Humean denial of necessary connections, and argue that there is no plausible understanding that will yield the result that Armstrong’s account – and other alleged “unHumean” accounts – employs necessary connections.  So perhaps the denial of necessary connections is not as close to the heart of the Humeanism as we sometimes think.