The origins of the phrase 'spontaneous order', and the origins of the idea as applied to human societies, do not have to be the same Some such idea (without the phrase) is surely present in Smith, but its origins could be traced back further. A simple example might be Hume's treatment of the balance of trade. Attempts by states to manipulate the balance of trade are likely to fail. Data is lacking, so that it is not even possible to determine what the balance of trade is. Nevertheless, monetary metals end up distributed between trading nations in proportion to levels of activity so as to keep price levels in line. Looks both spontaneous and orderly to me. In the 18th century (and earlier), the order of nature was often seen as the result of divine creation, so perhaps not wholly 'spontaneous'. Mill's use of the phrase is in this sort of context, but criticizing the idea that the spontaneous course of nature has some special status. See http://www.la.utexas.edu/research/poltheory/mill/three/nature.html and search for 'spontaneous order'. It doesn't have much to do with Hayek's idea, though the phrase might have struck him. If human action led to coherent (perhaps in some sense optimal) results this might be spontaneous in the sense that it is the result of decentralized human action without any centralized human coordinator, but it might also (in an 18th century view) be the intended result of design by the 'great architect of the universe', or whatever. Whether that counts as spontaneous, I wouldn't like to say. Smith (and others) may have thought this way. Tony Brewer