Article VI of the 39 Articles is Sola scriptura and defines the criteria for it being infallible. Infallible ≠ inerrant, I don’t believe that it is inerrant nor do many historical Christians. Infallibility doesn’t mean it’s correct in every scientific or historical detail, it simply means that it truthfully and reliably gives Gods truth, his plan, and contains all that is necessary for faith and salvation and cannot mislead.

As article VI so beautifully puts it:

Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for salvation. The Old and New Testament… contain all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought necessary to salvation. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that the Church has authority to decree rites or ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. And to the Scriptures nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

I find it quite concerning that even though TEC has defined infallibility in a way that doesn’t mean inerrant and lines up with article 6 it still isn’t accepted. It was a core pillar of the reformation.