How did James Orr's view of the inspiration of the Bible differ from B. B. Warfield's?

Two of the intellectual fathers of Christian fundamentalism, and ultimately evangelicalism, were [James Orr](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Orr_(theologian)) and [B. B. Warfield](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._B._Warfield) . Both contributed to *[The Fundamentals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fundamentals)* , and are well known for opposing modernism and liberalism. But recently I learned that they differed from one another on the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. John Woodbridge and Frank James, in [*Church History*, II, 21.II.D](https://books.google.com/books?id=Xg0vAu9M-WQC&lpg=PP1&pg=PT589) , write: > [Orr] was unwilling to draw the circle so tightly even though he shared a deep commitment to the supernatural inspiration of the Bible, which as such requires our sincere obedience. He argued that strict inerrancy is "a most suicidal position" that had the potential for destroying the "whole edifice of belief in revealed religion." Interestingly, Wikipedia says that James Orr believed in the "[infallibility](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Orr_(theologian)&oldid=787446425) " of the Bible, which to me is normally, for practical purposes, a synonym of inerrancy. Thus it appears that I don't have a full understanding of the debate over inerrancy and infallibility in fundamentalism and early evangelicalism. To begin to understand this better, I'd like to know, from the actual writings of these two men, where they differed on this doctrine.