My answer would be a yes and no kind of answer.
A lot depends on understanding the contemporary context of 'literal' and 'figurative/metaphorical' when describing biblical interpretation, and the gap between these usages and Late Antiquity.
Almost no-one holds the position of what I'll call today, "Actual Literalism". That is, that the Bible contains no figurative or metaphorical use of language and should be read 'flatly'. Rather, 'literal' today functions more as a code-word for religious conservatives and liberals: for the former it means, "we think it's true and take it seriously." for the latter, it means "those conservative guys think it's true and read it unsophisticatedly."
Talking about the Bible as metaphorical tends to encode the same set of oppositions, conservatives to liberals, "You guys don't think it's true and are just playing games with language.", Liberals to themselves, "Of course we think it's true; it's just not true like you think it's true."
All of which is problematic because it has very little to do with figurative readings. Figurative reading is not simply a case of "Well, it doesn't literally mean X, it really means Y and let me show you how."
One of the few excellent books on early christian interpretation of scripture is Frances Young's *Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture". It's a great read, if you've got access and the time. Anyway, for example on p192 she categorises 8 different types of allegorical reading. She goes on to investigate other ways to categorise methods of reading. One of her main points, which I would heartily endorse, is that seeing ancient reading as a dichotomy between 'literal' and 'allegorical' is false and misleading.
So, let's get back to those 2nd and 3rd century Christians. Did they take the Bible 'literally'?
If you simply mean, "took it seriously and believed it to be true", then overwhemingly yes. Christian writings and thought in this period held what we would call "a high view of scripture." They thought it was divinely inspired, and treated it as factual. However, this doesn't mean you should read into their views what 20-21st century (American) Evangelicals understand by those terms necessarily.
If you mean did they read it 'flatly' with no concept of figure and metaphor, then certainly no. You can find some examples of this type of reading, among say early Latin North Africans, but it's exceedingly rare then as it is today.
If you mean something like, "did they generally prefer straightfoward readings as opposed to fanciful and elaborate allegories disconnected to the text", then it depends where you were and who you listened to. That is very much how Gnostics used Christian scriptures. It also tends to be how some in the Egyptian context read some passages, but allegory can be found throughout early Christian interpretations, and not always consistently. Nor does it necessarily mean that an interpreter didn't also take the text seriously and/or literally.
Growing up in a Baptist family, I was taught no such thing; quite the opposite. "Baptist" covers a lot of ground.
There are writings from at least as early as the 5th century that clearly treat many parts of the bible as metaphor, not literal fact. On the other hand that doesn't necessarily mean that all Christians were even aware that that was an issue or a possibility.
100% no-exceptions biblical literalism didn't really "get going" until the 18th century, as a position of opposition to modern critical approaches to the texts in the bible.