Not only did the early church embrace infant baptism without controversy. So did the Reformers: Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Martin Bucer. John Wesley. Others.
Hey...just in case...better safe than sorry.
God’s insurance policy.
As a paedobaptist myself there is much to like about this article.
As a Presbyterian I would add infants are included in the covenant. As children of the covenant they are to be included in the full life off the church.
Why not just believe what the Bible says?
It did not. Jesus commissioned the disciples to go and mke more disciples from all nations, and baptize these disciples as they had been baptized. The fruit of a disciple is more disciples, not more babies.
Infant baptism was not performed by the early churches because baptism was by total immersion, as practiced by Jews for ritual cleansing in the mikvah; and only those sentient and accountable to God for their sins could exercise repentance and faith. Infant baptism divorces this whole requisite from the rite. It's a cheap and ineffective way to assuage a parent's demand to have his/her religion make the child Heaven-worthy.
Infant baptism was first initiated in the late second century, and the practice was strongly urged when Christianity became the state religion. No faith-mechanism needed.