While Faber isn't in the same league as Hislop, his work and others that were torn to ribbons and discredited over a century ago are obsecure enough that many "prophecy experts", and rabid anti-Catholics refer to them knowing full well they've been debunked but also knowing full well that very few in their audiance will know or care that it's all been debunked.
Faber originated the theory that each day recorded in the Genesis creation account is actually an age. Based on that assumption he claimed that Darwinian evoultion was a very good fit with the Biblical account of creation. It's always been interesting to me that the same people who believe Genesis is a literal account of a six day creation ignore that portion of Faber's work in order to embrace his anti-Catholic, lies, fabrications, and speculations. Is that an indication that they don't care whether or not he was led by the Holy Spirit, that they think the Holy Spirit takes frequent vacations and wasn't home when Faber wrote about evolution, or an admission that anti-Catholic folks could care less whether someone is led by the Holy Spirit or by Satan just as long as they're anti-Catholic?
It's also interesting that there were many well known Anglicans contemporary with Faber who wrote books and tracts specifically to debunk what Faber was preaching, both about evolution and about the early Church. The anti-Catholic crowd, however, don't seem to care that his own church didn't buy what he was selling. I take that as pretty good proof that those who quote Faber don't really care whether his fabrications are true or not, but I'm sure others see things differently or are unaware of what was going on at the time.
Apparently, as long as someone is anti-Catholic they can deny the Trinity, deny the diety of Christ, call Christ a liar by denying what Christ Himself said, and preach any sort of anti-Christ doctrine they like. Not a bit of that will bother those who constantly attack the Catholic Church but insist that they're Christian and not anti-Catholic. And obviously not a bit of it will cause them to ever doubt the authority of any known liar they enjoy quoting.
Smells of desperation. And fear. Faber did not need be correct in all things, to be correct in many.
I'll grant that same leeway to Roman Catholicism in general, and individual adherents more generously.
As it stands now, the description & use of "anti-catholic" simply remains much as Faber described it more fully, over the course of many pages.
It is great conceit for the Latin Patriarch of the Western Church to ascribe most chiefly & solely to themselves and their dogmas (not agreed to by many other "catholics" of long standing) the term CATHOLIC particularly when such was first used in history in the small case (letter "c"), and the word meant basically "universal", but over years was appropriated to refer not to the greater, universal church, but to refer chiefly to themselves --- describing all else to be "lacking fullness of the truth".
One may themselves subscribe to such as matter of choice, but to proclaim it "true" we continually see it be an argument of assertion, and quite vehement assertion, but failing here and there to establish in actual fact, when we look to those evidences that may be found from the primitive church of the first few centuries, and the Word.
Faber's book was written in 1825. Newman's work dedicated 1850 addressed in 1850 to to the Party of the Religious Movement of 1833. as seen on the title/dedication page.
Which means your portrayal of it as a counter to Newman is historically incorrect, for it was more fully the other way around. Now that Faber's work itself was a counter, a defense as it were to other earlier Roman Catholics whom came to sow doubt among the Anglican's, is correct as he explains in the preface to his own work, which I've brought full pages of here, and previously included links for .