Pastor Wallace can answer of course, but if I may, I don't see a realistic example where specific authors' books would figure in idolatrous worship practices. If there is someway they could be treated like that serpent was, then the answer is that we remove them from the worship of God, per the rule supported by Hezekiah's example. Again, we are not speaking of things which have a necessary use and ordained of God (the truth, sacraments, etc.).
All things and rites which have been notoriously abused to idolatry, if they are not such as either God or nature has made to be of a necessary use, should be utterly abolished and purged away from divine worship, in such sort that they may not be accounted nor used by us as sacred things or rites pertaining to the same.
But the cross, surplice, kneeling in the act of receiving the communion, &c., are things and rites, &c., and are not such as either God or nature, &c.Therefore they should be utterly abolished, &c.
I posted links to Gillespie's adducing and proving this rule in a previous post above. Here is Calvin's statement of it (translation from the French courtesy of Raymond V. Bottomly):
“… that what is alleged of an Italian writer, that abuse does not take away the good usage, will not be true if one holds to it without exception: because it is not in the least commanded [i.e. it is commanded] to us to prudently watch that by our example we would not offend the infirm brothers, that of never undertaking that which would be illicit. For Saint Paul prohibits offending the brothers in eating of flesh which was sacrificed to idols, and speaks of one kind, he always gives as a general rule that we are to keep ourselves, from troubling the consciences of the weak by a bad or damaging example. Indeed, one would speak better and more wholesomely when one says that what God himself ordains may not be abolished for wrong use or abuse that is committed against it: but it is necessary to abstain from these things which, after they have been corrupted with error by human ordinance, if the usage of these is harmful and scandalizes the brothers. And here I marvel how this “Reformer”, finally, after granting that sometimes superstitions, ordained by public authority, have such strong popularity that it is necessary to take them away from the realm of man (like we read having been done by Hezekiah regarding the bronze serpent), yet he does not even a little consider that his shrewdness is a horror to ways of good conduct: in defending some rituals as supportable, he would oblige that all superstitions if they are weighty enough, should be considered as safe and whole. For what is there in the papacy that would not resemble a bronze serpent, if only at its beginning? Moses had it made and forged by the commandment of God: he had it kept for a sign of recognition. Among the virtues of Hezekiah that we are told is that he had it broken and reduced to ash. The superstitions for the most part, against that which true servants of God battle today, are spreading from here to who knows, as covered pits in the ground, seeing the same are filled with detestable errors, which can never be erased, unless that usage of them be taken away. Why, therefore, do we not confess simply that which is true, that this remedy is needed in order to remove the filth from the church?”Responsio Ad Versipellem Quendam Mediatorem, p. 41–44. [Cf. CR 37 (CO 9), 542. Cf. [French] “Response a Un Certain Moyenneur Rusé”, Recueil des Opuscules (Geneva: Stoer, 1611) 2191–2192.