I stand corrected. I’ve done a bit of research myself, and the closest I could find to the alleged Edwards quote is:
*"One of these two things are certainly true, and self-evidently so: either that it is most just, exceeding just, that God should take the soul of a new-born infant and cast it into eternal torments, or else that those infants that are saved are not saved by the death of Christ. For none are saved by the death of Christ from damnation that have not deserved damnation. Wherefore, if it be very just, it is but a foolish piece of nonsense, to cry out of it as blasphemous to suppose that it ever is [just], because (they say) it is contrary to his mercy.
Now such I ask, whether it is contrary to his mercy to inflict punishment upon any according to their deserts, and whether it was contrary to God’s mercy to damn the fallen angels. There was no mercy showed to them at all. And why is it blasphemous to suppose that God should inflict upon infants so much as they have deserved, without mercy, as well as [upon] them?MS: “as they”; the reference is to the fallen angels, whereas the preceding “they” refers to infants. If you say, they have not deserved it so much, I answer: they certainly have deserved what they have deserved, as much as the fallen angels; because their sin is not accompanied with such aggravating circumstances, so neither shall their punishment be so aggravated. So that the punishment of one is every whit as contrary to God’s mercy as [that of] the other. Who shall determine just now much sin is sufficient to make damnation agreeable to the divine perfections? And how can they determine that infants have not so much sin? For we know they have enough to make their damnation very just."
I would disagree with this and agree with Jerry-Jet here. I would say rather that “it’s a state of hatred of God and other people that lasts forever.” This is in one sense a more horrible picture of hell (given the choice, I’d rather have unrequited love for God forever than have hatred of God forever), but a much less horrible picture of God. It is not only morally repugnant but alien to Scripture and Tradition to argue that the damned love God (it’s morally repugnant because it says that God eternally rejects people who love Him).
You and Jerry-Jet are both right, literally speaking. My phrasing was not clear: I was referring to God’s unrequited love for us. A person in Hell certainly cannot love God, though he will certainly feel the eternal pains of separation. There’s a reason why Christ refers to the state as “outer darkness”.
I’ll also agree that the “pain of the senses” has been consistently taught by the Church and the Church Fathers, with the exception of a very few. The Catechism chooses not to emphasise them, but the Catechism does not overrule this teaching.