The short answer
No. The sentence usually quoted to show that he did is about something else, and the same book is full of warnings about what self-interested merchants do when they get together.
The butcher, the brewer and the baker
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. That is usually read as a claim that people are selfish and that this is fine.
The argument is about scale. In a village you can be liked by everyone you depend on. In a city you need bread, shoes and coal from people you will never meet, and there are not enough hours in a life to befriend them all. Exchange is how strangers can be got to help you. Three lines later Smith says what the alternative is: Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens.
What he thought of the self-interested
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.
And on any new law proposed by merchants: it comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public.
The other book
His first book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, is about how people judge themselves: by imagining themselves in another's place, until they carry an impartial spectator in their own heads. He spent the last of his strength, in 1789 and 1790, adding a whole new part to it. Nineteenth-century German scholars decided the author of the sympathy book and the author of the self-interest book could not be the same man. That claim is dead; sympathy in Smith is how we judge, not why we act.