True, but I don't see the Church always teaching infant baptism. Unless one assumes the Didache teaches infant baptism, which is unclear, the you have silence until Hippolytus' account in the later 100s, kind of a crucial gap. Now, Monk Cyprian made a good point point that it should have caused a scandal if it was unprecedented, but what if what just an unevenly spreading regional custom?
I hope it will on me as well.
My current approach is more fear based, I think. "Do not go beyond what is written," keeps coming to mind.
The fatal flaw in that reasoning is, of course, that you are depending on yourself to be able to "properly" interpret/understand what is written so that you will not go beyond it. Nowhere is it written that one should not baptize children and there is evidence from both scripture and history that they were. So when you have two groups, one using Scripture to prove believer's baptism (and the Orthodox do most certainly baptize believers!) and the other using it to prove both adult and infant baptism, how do you resolve the conflict?
You look to what the Church has always believed/preached/taught.
By the 300s we have St. John Crysostom, St. Gregory of Nyssa and others not being baptized till they were adults and Tertullian arguing violently against it.
During what time in his life do you see Tertullian arguing so vehemently against infant baptism? Before he fell into heresy, or afterward?