In principle, split from amsmath packet does the job.
Here, your code spinet doesn't compile because you have a frac (the one starting with \frac{\alpha^{1} which is split between the two lines.
Without the split, one get the following equation:
which IMO is terribly ugly.
Eliminating this faulty fraction, abetter coding would be :
\begin{equation}\label{eq1}
\begin{split}
A_{t}(r,\theta)&=\bigg(\frac{\alpha^{0}(\frac{r}{2M}) + \beta^{0}}{r}\bigg) P_{0} \\
&\qquad+ \frac{1}{r}\;\bigg(\alpha^{1}\Big(\frac{r}{2M} \big(-\frac{r}{2M} + 1\big)\Big) %\times\\
%& \qquad\qquad
\beta^{1}\Big(\frac{r}{2M}\big(1-\frac{r}{2M}\big)\big(2\ln(\frac{r}{r-2M} - \frac{2M}{r} - \frac{1}{\frac{r}{2M} - 1})\big)\Big)\bigg) P_{1}(\cos\theta) +\cdots,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
resulting in:
which is still to large...
As the \bigg parenthesis of the second term seems to be a product, and because the structure \Bigg( ... \Bigg)\\ can be split among lines (oppositely to\fracor\left(...\right)`` ) you could split it again:
\begin{equation}\label{eq1}
\begin{split}
A_{t}(r,\theta)&=\bigg(\frac{\alpha^{0}(\frac{r}{2M}) + \beta^{0}}{r}\bigg) P_{0} \\
&\qquad+ \frac{1}{r}\;\bigg(\alpha^{1}\Big(\frac{r}{2M} \big(-\frac{r}{2M} + 1\big)\Big) \; \times\cdots\\
& \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
\beta^{1}\Big(\frac{r}{2M}\big(1-\frac{r}{2M}\big)\big(2\ln(\frac{r}{r-2M} - \frac{2M}{r} - \frac{1}{\frac{r}{2M} - 1})\big)\Big)\bigg) P_{1}(\cos\theta) \\
&\qquad+\cdots,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
resulting in:

Of course if \beta^1 is a variable and not a function of the following parenthesis, instead to the proposed break, a break just before the \big(2\ln( (with suitable change of parenthesis size) could be preferred.
\fracacross multiple lines without showing how this should be handled. Also, you can't break structures across&without some help... Can you provide a visual of what the output is supposed to look like? It'll give a better understanding of how solutions should handle a fraction broken across a line-break. – Werner Mar 22 '18 at 17:30